have a low threshold when it comes to corruption. the appearance of corruption or even the talk of it is guilty. we -- all i can think of is the shroud of corruption hovering over her. this was my hero. so, please . the dwn issue for me when i hear democrats talk about the gun issue, and i'm a staunch democrat. it sounds to me when i hear conservatives talk about abortion, which to me is a settled issue, move on. i know the second amendment is an amendment which means it wasn't in the constitution to begin w it was added on as the time changed. talked about a well regulated militia which is the part people ignore. for me also i feel that a lot of laws which already people have mentioned that are on the books that criminals will never adhere to. no matter how many rules you put in place, they will never adhere

to those rules. so you end up punishing the law-abiding citizens that just want to protect themselves. host: thanks, cowler. guest: i don't think we have hurt the law-abiding citizens. i can never give up on this issue because i have a lot of moms and dads that i deal with that have lost their children. i have gone to funerals of parents, grandparents that have lost family members. i can never give up on this issue because i do believe that something can be done and we can save lives. host: union, washington, here's reed. republican line. caller: good morning. i just have a couple points i'd like to make and i'll be brief. to quote our founding fathers, didn't franklin say that those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom or security. so to let the government overregulate in terms of the second amendment, it just makes

no sense. i have a point about the stocks going up. gun sales going up and the stocks of gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. prior to president obama's presidency, it was somewhere around 3.1 on the average guns sold per year. excuse me 3.1 million guns sold per year. now they are up to 20 million. that is not because crime is worse. that's because the citizenry doesn't trust democrats when they are in power. somebody should maybe do an investigation to see what stocks and bonds president obama and biden and all these democrats own because they know before they get in front of the camera and try to take our guns what's going to happen. and the statistics i just stated is exactly what happened. the stocks and bonds go throughout roof for these gun manufacturers. i own guns. i have got two safes full of guns. i keep them completely bound in the safe except for a gun by my bed. ok. so if something happens in the middle of the night i don't have

time to run to the safe. i call any person a hypocrite who would say in the middle of the night you hear a glass break, you hear your door kicked in you wouldn't want to have a gun. i don't care how liberal you are, it's a natural human instinct to protect your own lives. host: union, washington. thanks for the call. guest: we are not trying to take guns from someone like reed or how he described himself. we are not trying to do that. again speaking of freedom and security, that people i represent want the freedom to be able to play in the park, walk to the store, walk to school, and they want that security and the thought that they will not be harmed by a gfpblet host: one more call. terry from tampa, florida. democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm glad i got on after the guy from washington. you know the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves. they never envisioned assault weapons, military-style weapons, 100 round drums, large capacity

magazines. also you'll hear callers say, look at the crime in chicago. and they have such strict gun regulations. well, yeah, i'm here in florida and believe me it's going up the iron corridor. up i-95. guns are sold down in the south. southwestern states and they are sent, they are trafficked up north. and that's why mayor bloomberg about three years ago, he sent an undercover operation sting down to arizona and went into these gun shows. it was on video and audio. and these gun dealers were laughing about how you don't need no background check. arizona was angry. oh, you have no nerve to come here to arizona, mayor bloomberg. how do you stop the gun trafficking? we couldn't get the bill passed that would have had stiff penalties for gun trafficking. one more point, those little children that were killed at sandy hook, you'll hear people talk about this. they have bullet holes in them the size of baseballs.

that's not regular firearms. that's assault weapons. i'm sick of hearing these republicans with this bull. don't take my gun. you know how childish they sound? childish. host: thanks. guest: thank you, caller. i can't even comment on that. you're right. host: as far as the work of the task force, how often do you meet ultimately what's the end goal of the task force? guest: usually we meet once a month with everybody's schedule and different committees and things like that. if we need an emergency meeting we will do that. again, the main goal is to decrease gun violence in our nation and really wanting to get the background check bill passed because over and over and over and statistically the people that study this every day talk about that they feel that this would help. there's not one piece of legislation that's going to take care of everything. that's what everyone says.

that one will solve that. no. but we have to start somewhere. we have to do something. besides moments of silence, which i don't participate in anymore because we stand up, we sit down, and do nothing. host: you don't stand during those. when did you make that decision? guest: about a year ago. the only time i stood was for charleston because that was so blatantly racist, i could not stand. i just got tired of it because we don't do anything. some people have sat with me. i wouldn't feel alone. one that just happened i missed and heard a moment of silence and one of my colleagues from illinois yelled out and said let's cut the silence. let's do something. host: that was jan schakowsky. guest: right. it's so frustrating. i don't know about people's conscience. i stood up, gave my moment of silence. i'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. believe me. not at all. but it's just so frustrating.

host: representative robin kelly, democrat from illinois, serves the second district. also vice chair of the gun violence task force. thanks for your time. host: on capitol hill currently, a debate over funding. an effort to keep the government from shutting down taking place on capitol hill. a spending bill expected to be unveiled on monday. yerl this morning we had a chance to talk about this issue with a reporter from the hill. mike who talked about where we are in the process of funding. and here's a little bit of an update from mike. 748-8002. the u.s., congress is currently going back and forth on coming up with a plan of fighting of the federal government, and joining us on host: where that plan is that as of today, hill," he isf "the a reporter of that publication. good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. thank you for having me. host: where are we as far as

coming up with an approval for a spending plan? guest: the bad news is they will not make their deadline. the deadline is friday for funding government. we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and there will not be a government shutdown. the government introduce their short-term spending bill yesterday, and that gave them a few more days to hash out the details of this thing. there was a five-day continuing resolution, which takes us through next wednesday, but the timeline is a bit more crunched than that because the new speaker, paul ryan, has said he wants to adhere to what is called the three-day rule, meeting he wants to introduce the bill three days in advance tothe boat to allow -- vote allow lawmakers time to read it. you remember this was a debate in the past, "i have not had time to read the bill." yes,peaker ryan says you will have time to read the bill. a long-term bill will have to be

introduced by monday, so that is where we are now. friday, buyote on some time, and a long-term vote next wednesday. host: what does that long-term bill have in terms of efforts to shut down the government over planned parenthood or syrian refugees or any of those things? does any of that exist over the form we will see? guest: that is the million-dollar question. this is a strange fight because it is not a fight over spending levels. usually, this is over spending levels are your member when former speaker john boehner was on his way out the door, he negotiated a big budget deal with president obama, and that set the task on spending. so we already know the levels. both sides have agreed to them for the most part, you know, with exceptions, but the fight we are having now is over the policy writers. the planned parenthood d funding provision is not in there. that is not one of the amendments we are fighting over,

but there are a long list of other ones, the initial package overthe republicans since to nancy pelosi and the democrats last week, pelosi said there are more than 30 amendments that are nonstarters, that we are not going to accept, and president obama is not going to accept that they are part of the package. now, she has been very secretive about these things. and named only one of them, that is the syrian refugees provision, the provision to toughen screenings on refugees coming over from syria and iraq. that has already passed the house as a stand-alone bill, but republicans also want to put it into the final package as a response to the recent terror attacks, specifically the terrorist attack where one of the attackers was allegedly a syrian refugees. michael mccaul, the chairman of the homeland security committee in the sponsor that bill, as of talks toing when we him, he said that is still part of the packets, but president

obama says he is going to veto it, so that is a big sticking point to we do not know what is going to happen there. are the democrats going to cut it out, except it, or are they going to swallow it? we're not sure what is going on there. there are a host of other things that could be there, epa water rules, epa smog rules, undo part efforts to of the dodd frank lawsuit reform law. there are all kinds of things the democrats say they will not accept, but again, they have not named them specifically, and we think that give them room to say ok, if they are in the final package, we can say we fought for them, we tweaked them, but of course the public will never know because they never saw the original vote. host: there was a story in the "new york times" this morning that suggests pet projects are getting into the final version of the spending bill. guest: sure. anytime you have a $1 trillion bill that will take you through

can look for, you pet projects. that is always a fun thing for reporters to do. when this enormous bill comes out on monday, you can guarantee there will be a lot of people in the capital looking through it to see what was thrown in there at the last minute to sweeten the deal for some of these lawmakers. there is no way to anticipate what will be in there in terms of those things. horse slaughter provisions -- it is all very provincial, very regional. they will get a headline, and people will get a chuckle out of them, and then they kind of disappear and become law, and nobody talks about them again except in the regions where they are affected. but that is a fun part of this progress. host: as far as the final spending plan, what you looking for as far as indicating it will pass smoothly or not, and what do we expect over the next several days? guest: this was always going to be a bipartisan bill. paul ryan has enormous majority in the house, biggest since the

great depression, but he knows he cannot pass anything without senate democrats who can filibuster any bill, and without president obama's signature. he also has these tea party conservatives who are always going to approach this bill because of the spending cap, because of that number that boehner and obama agreed upon. they do not have any leverage and the writer fight because they are going to vote against the anyway. it is always going to be bipartisan. you can expect an overwhelming bipartisan vote. you will lose some conservatives who will object to some parts of it, particularly spending levels, but you can expect that cr will pass, that the omnibus will pass, that the president will sign it. mitch mcconnell and paul ryan, both remember all too well how the 16-day shutdown in 2013 over obama care really kind of harm to the republican brand, if only

temporarily. they do not want that to happen, particularly mid presidential election race. i think they will make good on that, and we will see a smooth process through next week. host: mike lillis with "the hill," giving us the host: with that in mind, for our next 45 minutes until the end of the program, since you have heard about the efforts being made to fund the government, we want to ask you your thoughts on what priorities for congressional spending should be. if you have the chance to advise members of congress on where the money should be spent and how much, where would you put those priorities? here you can let us know. host: if you want to make your

thoughts on priorities for spending known on media channels, go on our twitter page@c-span wj and post on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. you heard mr. lillis talk a little bit about the projects or at least the pet projects that will be put in the bill that's expected on monday. a follow-up story by david of the "new york times" this morning, headline, lawmakers rush to cram pet projects into the spending deal. they include republican priorities such as blocking environmental regulation that would expand federal authority over waterways, or department of labor conflict of interest rule that would impose new restrictions on financial advisors handling retirement funds. and another provisions with a narrow impact. , tweet to a depression era law critics say would benefit apollo

global management. the house has voted twice in recent months for bills that would lift the ban on crude oil exports, a move eagerly sought by lawmakers in oil producing states, and supporters of lifting the restriction of the republican of alaska said doing so would help the american soil industry which struggle amid lower global prices . when it comes to spending priorities for congress in light of issues concerning spending nd passing this bill, again, 2302-748-8001 for republicans. 2302-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. start off this morning with lesley. she's in birlington, north carolina, on our republican -- burlington, north carolina, on the republican line. thanks for calling. caller: thank you. you're one of my favorite people on c-span in the morning just to let you know that off the bat. here i've got my three things. there are actually only 10

things the government -- federal government is actually supposed to do for the states because people don't actually understand that the states are what form the federal government. the federal government wasn't there and told states what to do. ne are, the post office, national security, defense, you have to put that into one big bucket. actually -- one is now, see. i'm just like -- host: let's start with the post office. why focus on that? caller: well, because the post office is actually enumerated in the constitution. and it says that mail should be delivered to all states. it after we became a federal government because the 13 states said ok, we are going to allow

you to rule over us. all right. they said we need that. and we also need -- basically it's foreign policy and national security. and there's one other one, though. oh, my -- i was just thinking about it. host: that's ok, lesley. you got two in. we appreciate the call. the post office and national security. that was lesley from burlington, north carolina. let's hear from cynthia, jacksonville, florida, independent line. hi. caller: hi. good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple things that i think are -- should be a priority. one is of course our infrastructure which includes updating our power grid. we are so vulnerable. the other thing that i think we should be spending our money on is some kind of a program for individual homeowners to purchase solar roofs for their

homes at low cost with like a repayment plan over 10 years which would certainly help energy. and the last thing i'd like to ask is that if c-span would have a show or several shows showing who the companies are that make money off guns. who the people are, who the investors are so that we know who is profiting from this death and destruction that's overtaking our world. thank you. host: we'll hear from ron next. ron is in little fairy, new jersey, democrats line. caller: hi. i was calling because i think a priority right now for a lot of americans is housing. i live inbergian county -- be -- in bergan county, and there is a

tremendous need for housing for low and middle income people in this area. there are waiting lists, after waitinglies, after waiting list. sometimes waiting list as long as 15 years for people to obtain housing. under the housing choice, voucher program. so that will be a priority. host: what monthly rent looking like there? caller: really it's very difficult to find anything under $1,000. host: that gets you what? a one bedroom? or two bedroom? what does that get you? caller: that's a studio. host: ok. caller: what happens is you have people that are on temporary rental assistance and that runs out. and i have friends whose temporary assistance is running out and they go to bergen county social services to try to get housing choice vouchers.

now it was a state-run protocol. but now each municipality runs their program. so you have to go to each city. say i need housing. they say you're on a waiting list for 10 years. host: that's ron in new jersey with his suggestion as far as priorities for congressional spending. you have heard a couple. you can add your thoughts to the mix, 202-748 - 8001. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for democrats. this is doug and kristen -- christina petersen saying under the bill states would still have to test students in reading and math in grade three through eight and once in high school. but the bill would end federal guidelines for defining school quality and require states to set up their own accountability system to measure improsm. and states can determine how to

intervene with the bottom 5% of schools and those with low graduation rates. states would still have to show test greata for subgroups of udents such as racial north, -- minorities, students in poverty. edward is in fort collins, colorado. republican line. edward, you're next. caller: hello, sir. i wanted to say that i think we should start spending more money on watching the money. we need to spend more money on oversight. they are sending money out crazy and it goes -- passing the bill and the money will go out for the bill and people skim off the top. you know they are dolling it. you know they are stealing from us. people out there, they are stealing from us bad. what happened to the money that went sew solyndra? in the bush administration, $13 billion or whatever lost in afghanistan. go get that money. get the money back.

what do we do? they are stealing from us. they are passing bills. and the bills -- they are allocating too much money for each bill. it's ridiculous. $1 billion they think is $1 million. they don't even know what a $20 bill will buy. they do not. host: edward, how do you think, if more oversight is what you're calling for, how is the money best spent? is there for inspectors? more effort on capitol hill or within the branches of the federal government? where do you think the money is best spent in the larger -- caller: the federal government and just more people to watch where it goes. watch where it goes and get it back. don't let these people take it and just spend it crazily. look at our national debt. this is what's happening. there's all kinds of government programs that are nowhere government programs. they go nowhere. they employ too many people for each program. it's unbelievable. our government -- our government is just unbelievably overloaded.

host: hear from sue in gaithersburg, maryland. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to see a priority spending on deportation of the 30 million illegal aliens in this country. i think the illegal alien issue can be tied directly to crime, to national security, to the impact on our health care, our education. and i'd like to see as much money as it requires to immediately get the 30 million out of the country and also the border surge that we are experiencing now in our southern border on these, quote, unaccompanied minors, i would like an expedited system, i don't care what it costs, to get them out of the country. host: that's sue in gaithersburg, maryland. "usa today" reports this morning about the state of alaska. its governor is calling for the first ever income tax in decades. saying in a speech by the governor and a series of tweets, walker announced the proposal part of what is called a new

sustainable alaska plan, a plan paired with a budget proposal is geared towards a $3.5 billion deficit the state is carrying. alaska is the only state that does not have a state sales tax or personal income tax. it has depended on income from oifment crude oil prices have hovered at a seven-year low. and this week they dipped to $37 a barrel. this is a time alaskans need to pull together. there is no perfect budget plan other than the plan that gets done. shirley from iowa. democrats line. hello. caller: yes. hi. we are talking about saving money, why not go to the system that they have over in europe, single payer system, and everybody would save -- we would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year. wouldn't most people be for that? instead we keep paying c.e.o.s of the health care companies gigantic wages and that's where

half of our money goes that we pend on health care. insurance. why don't you ask that question as one of your questions. wouldn't we save hundreds of billions of dollars a year as was reported in financial times several years ago, and i have been following it on my computer. host: that's shirley in iowa. financial times, by the way, on its front page takes a look at new research from the pew research center on what americans make in the united states. they tie it to political -- the political season with donald trump and things. he says about the population. but front page story by sam fleming and sean said the u.s. middle class has sha runge to just half the population for the first time in at least four decades as the forces of technological change and globalization drive a wedge between the winners and losers in a splintering society. the ranks of the middle class are now narrowly outnumbered by those in lower and upper income

strata combined for the first time since at least the early 1970's, according to the definitions by the pew research center and research shared with the financial times of the the story goes on to say that recent political debate has been dominated by the view that u.s. society has been distorted by staggering gains for the top 1% of the country at the expense of the remaining 99%. but pew gives a more nuanced picture. better off household, defined by pew at earning over $125,608 a year account for more than one in five of the population. that is the highest share of the study has found as the well educated enjoy strong prospects. quote, on balance, there is more economic progress than regression. according to the report. here is darren from washington, d.c. independent line. we are talking about priorities for congressional spending. what do you think? aller: good morning.

i got three like the first carol. first one, i agree with another caller energy. the power companies don't want t big business doesn't want clean energy. because they can't make any money off of it after the initial purchase. solar and wind. we should investing full throttle into that technology. i live in d.c. thank goodness d.c. is pretty progressive when it comes to that. i think that should be a priority. it we need to as put more money into air america. more money into america propaganda to help soften some of these countries to show them what real american priorities are. how them our tv, music, art. they'll be less inclined to

terrorize the world. i have one third thing, this one caller said something about -- she wanted the 30 million illegal immigrants out of here. and she's on the independent line, she probably voting for donald trump. these people, i work around these people all the time. these people are here for work. and if these republican-owned businesses didn't hire them, they wouldn't have anywhere to work. they are working under the table to get way less. they are skilled workers. these guys are carpenters, painters, brick layers, plumbers. they get crap when it comes to how much money they get. they are here illegally and they get exploited. there are lots of businesses that want to keep the exploitation going. everybody says, we want these guys out. but the business owner that's hiring these carpenters on these

construction jobs, the painters, or brick layers, they could care less. host: that's darren in washington, d.c. grand george, new york, is where lee is on our republican line. lee, good morning. caller: good morning. you had an earlier guest, representative thomas massie, who said that on this three day debate it could start at 11:00 p.m. at night and that would be counted for a full day. it just seems to me we are getting to the point where we have passed this bill and read it later or not. and i'm confused about a lot of things because as i listened through the years it's like, you won't be able to go home for christmas unless you pass this bill. now, the future of the american people are at stake and if these people don't get an opportunity to go over these bills, there's no benefit to anybody. and james ff flake

lankford have published two books just this year, 100 plus billion dollars were spent on frivolous things. yet you squeeze every dime out of the middle class people. and yet just blow t it makes me angry. host: that's grand george, new york. "usa today" this morning, an interview with presidential candidate john kasich. spovegly on what he would do to defeat isil, saying rejecting mr. trump's proposal to borrow muslims from -- bar muslims from the united states, he jount lined his approach. building an international coalition, increasing coordination of intelligence agencies, dealing with concerns about encryption software, and tightening visa requirements. he said the u.s. ground troops would have to be deployed soon orer later to defeat the self-proclaimed islamic state, but we have to go on the ground and in the air and destroy isis in the coalition. you do not reclaim territory, do not destroy no enemy from the air. it never has. this is the fantasy, an ability

to put off hard decisions. the longer we put off hard decisions, the more complicated going there is going to mean. that's in "usa today." if you go to the wages of "wall street journal" this morning, it talks about efforts in iraq, specifically looking at the city of ramadi, efforts take that. saying the white house said that iraqi forces were making, quote, modest problem in the effort to retake ramadi. that's according to u.s. defense secretary ash carter. he said the pentagon was prepared to send advise earns attack helicopters to help the iraqis in the final push for control of the city. another indication of washington's willingness to escalate the fight against the islamic state. the story says the latest advances in ramadi follow headway against sunni extremist in other fronts this. would be the first big victory security forces backed only by relatively he inexperienced sunni members.

independent line, go ahead. caller: there are a couple of things. number one thing, they need to put -- enforce e-verify, and put a $50,000 fine on anybody who hires an illegal alien and have a bounty of $5,000. that will stop that quick. number two, they need to audit the defense department. they spent $150 billion in afghanistan for infrastructure and they didn't build anything. they could save billions on that. the defense contractors in china charge 90% less than ours do. so much corruption in there it's unbelievable. half of our tax dollars goes towards defense. so who do you think is paying the politicians to create wars and promote the defense department? thank you. host: albany, new york, here is david, republican line. hi. caller: hi. i have two comments.

one is about the callers who made comments about taxes in the u.s.a. i'm a product of overseas volunteer disclosure program. i would suggest some of your listeners they read that program because they have no idea of what a nightmare the tax system is until you venture through this program. listentwo, the -- when i to the tv, fox news, nbc, c-span, you name it, it reminds me of a big family with 20 people sitting around the dining room table and all yelling and screaming at the same time and nobody knows what they are talking about. and i think sooner or later congress is going to have to come together, this goes for mr. obama also, quit doing news briefs.

shooting off at the mouth. and provide us something concrete. some of the things people are saying are border lining on -- looking for the right word, not crazy, but they are just -- i don't get t host: alan from knightstown, indiana, republican line. you're next. caller: yes. i want to talk about our health. and i would like c-span listeners and c-span to do a web search on health science institute. over 50 years ago medical doctors and scientists went to investigate why some people live long and healthy lives, and as a result they have -- they are an organization you can join for $49, that gives you-all the natural resources you need and where to get them to stay healthy. for example, most people don't know we don't have minerals in our food anymore. so they need to take mineral drops. they don't know that if you're

alkaline, you're acidic, you're going to get sick. and other things like hydrogen peroxide. these are just a few of the things people could do. host: ellen, we are talking to folks about priorities for congressional spending. what would you focus spending on? caller: i would say that health hould be sent to the states. if people understood that instead of taking a bunch of drugs they could eat properly and take the right vitamins and minerals, we could cut down our expenses and pay less on our insurance. host: priorities for congressional spending. that's what we are asking you for the remainder of our show this morning. the house comes in at 10:00. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and 202-748-8002 for independents.

we'll take those calls up until 10:00. "the washington post" takes a look at a speech, the president made yesterday, looking at issues, the 13th amendment and slavery. greg writing that the president spoke at a ceremony commemorating the 150th anniversary of the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery. it was clear the words he chose and crowd's response he was talking as much about today as the event of the past centrist. one subtext of his remarks was republican presidential frontrunner donald trump's call to bar muslims from entering the united states. the president urged the audience in the capitol to rise above the cynicism and fear and hold ourself fast to our values to see ourselves and each other. he goes on in the paper version, here's a bit of that speech that took place yesterday. by prom. >> we would do a disservice to those warriors of justice, tubman and douglass and lincoln

and king were we to deny the scars of our nation's original sin are still with us today. [applause] president obama: we condemn ourselves to shackles once more if we fail to answer those who wonder if they are truly equals in their communities or in their justice systems. or in the job interview. we betray the efforts of the past if we fail to push back against bigotry in all its forms. host: again, that full speech available on our c-span website if you want to see the president's full remarks. a shot of capitol hill as we are talking about congressional spending. efforts on capitol hill to pass

a spending bill. and asking you to give your priorities when it comes to congressional spending. let's hear from carol in salisbury, north carolina, republican line. hello, go ahead. caller: yes. i just heard the president talking about -- i just don't understand when he comes on he talks about things that have absolutely nothing to do out here in little america. i don't understand it. why in the world can't he and congress realize that the -- they don't even know what the problems are. the problems are that they have sent all the jobs out in the -- of the contry. people don't have any jobs. just take, for instance, this is happening out in california, why would somebody like him holding down a job like that, nobody even knows what he possibly has gone out here and done. and you've got all these illegals coming into the country

that are holding jobs. and then you wonder why all these people are out here stealing and doing all the things that they are doing. i just don't understand why they don't know -- why don't they go out and live in a little small town so that that -- they can see what the problem is. host: in light of that, carol, what would you tell congress sfargs when it comes to spending priorities? you were asking folks about that. small towns and large. what would you focus spending on when it comes to congress? caller: look at all the spending you got going on with obamacare. i'm 72 years old. and what they have done is they have caused all the doctors out in here small towns, they are all retiring, moving, quitting, or doing anything they can to get away from this. they don't want you to come into their practice because they can't make any money. i understand that because i get

a statement that shows exactly what these doctors and hospitals and things gets paid after my visit. and they are getting nothing in compensation. and all the money that the government's paying out is going to be -- they are paying people like humana and all these little insurance companies. all of that money -- the c.e.o., eight years ago, was making $32 million a year. nobody deserves as a c.e.o., $32 million a year. host: that's carol in salisbury, north carolina. she spoke about health care. on the front page of the "new york times" a story by robert about senator rubio. a measure of his that the headline says delivers a blow to the president's health care law. it goes on to say a little noticed health care provision that senator marco rubio floofment slipped into giant spending law last year has tangled up the obama

administration's sent tremors through the health insurance market and rattled confidence in the health law. mr. rubio's efforts against the so-called risk corridor provision of the health care law have hardly risen to the forefront of the race for the republican presidential nomination, but his plan limiting how much the government can spend to protect insurance companies against financial losses has shown the effectiveness of the quiet legislative sabotage. the risk corridors were intended to help some insurance companies if they ended up with too many sick people on their rolls and too little cash from premiums to cover their medical bills in the first three years of the law. because mr. rubio -- because of mr. rubio's efforts, the administration says it will only pay 13% of what insurance companies were expecting to receive this year. the payments were supposed to help insurers cope with the risk they assumed when they decided to participate in the new insurance markets. can you read more at the new york tifmentse from orlando, florida, hi. caller: hi. good morning. i just wanted to say when my mom

and dad had 13 children. i'm the babey. all of them dead but me. and it seem like i work three or four jobs all my life and always had -- used to keep $1,000 in my pocket every day to help other people out. i had a stroke in 1990 and a heart atafpblgt and then my insurance was canceled because of that they want to go up $1,000 montreal. i couldn't work. now i get $1,000 -- i'm living off $1,000 a month. $1,000. and this year they didn't even give us a raise. and everything went up. the medicine went up. the co-payment went up. everything went up. how can i get along on $1,000 a month? i pay my taxes all my life. host: new york, democrats line. hello. caller: hello, good morning.

just to add to what has been said i think we need to have a health care program for all. eliminate the insurance people who are making profits off of us. to me health care is one of the most important things in our lives. if you are not healthy, then we are not good for ourselves or anyone else. also i think when someone is poor and needy, help them until they can get on their feet or pull up or whatever positions they are in. i think we could perhaps maybe get through to the congress and , ators that their paychecks they are making $200,000, $300,000 a year, maybe they could cut some of theirs and also give at least $15 to the people who are working. i am retired and living on fixed income. also someone else mentioned the fact that about the guns. they don't realize that even if

you have restricted gun controls, which we have here in new york, they don't realize that guns come in from other places into your country. even in chicago they said they are bringing them in from other states that don't have any restriction. so people should think about that and not say it's restricted. why do they have the guns there. they are being brought in from other states. please remember that. thank you. host: the front page of the "washington post" this morning, a look at the financial condition of jeb bush's superp.a.c. saying that the group has already gone through nearly half of the $103 billion in brought in during the first half of the year, records show. it raised only about $13 million in the five months that followed, according to pearn familiar with the figure. that leaves the super p.a.c. with about $67 million heading into the first 2016 g.o.p. nominating contest. the sum still surpasseses the resources of rival groups, but it is not clear whether right to rise financial might viewed earlier this year as a distinct

advantage, will be enough to help him separate from the pack. bradley from north carolina, republican line. you're next. caller: good morning. i think if congress could prioritize spending on some construction jobs and creating more army air force exchange service complexes in ordinary towns and cities across the united states, to provide local -- excuse me, local military personnel and their families, as well as regular everyday civilians a new shopping experience, it would not only generate funds for department of defense, but also alleviate other funds for other more social projects. host: those are usually located at military bases, close to that, right? caller: that is absolutely correct. but as a son of military personnel, i can assure you they are amazing shopping establishments.

much like shopping malls. and the postal exchange has -- it's like going to a kohl's or belk. the commissaries are our service men and women's groceries stores. host: is there a price differencing between going there or going to one of the stores that you mentioned? caller: i'm glad you asked. absolutely no. the prices are very comparable to wal-mart or any other grocery store. however, the difference between shopping at those places and the afies is the service men and women and their families are given their products with essentially tax free. and i think if you built those in towns and cities, off of military bases, you should -- i'm sure they can create software that will tax civilians. of course leave those benefits for service men and women in place.

host: elie next from syracuse, new york. democrats line. caller: good morning. i admire you how you can -- hello? host: you're on. go ahead. caller: i admire you how you can sit there and listen to some of the stuff because i fight with the tv every morning. i would cut out corporate welfare. subsidies. welfare that they get. will mott made $54 billion profit last year. they get a check for about $686 million. why? cut it out. they don't need it. and the second -- my priority is single payer. i studied this in canada for six months. i saw documentaries. i am a real believer, the insurance companies are getting rich. and you can say anything you want, but show me a c.e.o. that

deserves $4,800 a day. he better walk on water. my opinion is that the middle class has been eviscerated. and i believe medical bills having been married to man who had a very bad heart condition. i know what medical bills can do to a family. and also had a space where i had no insurance. and let me tell you. it ruined my life for many -- not ruined my life. but it really put such hardship on my family. my medicine was $800 a month. ok. they rob without a gun. we have to get rid of these insurance companies. single payer. host: that's elie in new york. giving her thoughts this morning on priorities for congressional spending. a story in the "washington times" takes a look at spending for ads that you'll see this political season.

this is julie writing that some $62,462 presidential ads have been on broadcast airwaves already this year. according to the advertising track or kantar media. the 2016 hopefuls and related political groups and super pax plans to spend $133 million on broadcast tv by the beginning of march. that's almost triple what's planned for cable television and it dwarfs ad buys on radio and the internet. by election day when races are factored in, political spending on local broadcast is predicted to reach as much as $3.6 billion. according to a 2016 forecast this week, ad dollars across all industries are shifting from television to online. television's own slice of the advertising pie is increasingly competitive, with local cable providing a way to more narrowly reach audiences at a cheaper rate than broadcast. joy from st. louis, missouri. good morning. go ahead. caller: i inted of talking about

ways to spend money, we should be talking about ways to save money. and to start paying down this $19 trillion debt. this is what's going to take us down. thank you for this tremendous program. host: california. harold, democrats line. you're on, go ahead. caller: i would suggest that the government should spend the money in requiring all schools or colleges, universities, adult education to have a performance fact sheet done for the success rate of that school. here in california they require ll schools to provide an audited performance fact sheet to show how many people started, how many people completed, how many people actually went to work and how much money they went to work for.

they also have a column that hows how many people went into internships, apprenticeships, enterprise zones because if you audit that 60 days after the funding runs out for those programs, it drops down from 100% down to about 8% to 12%. if a person actually knew the success rate of the school, they probably would change what they think they would want to do. the government schools are probably the worst offenders of having programs that cost the taxpayers a lot of money to teach people things that don't end up in real jobs. the private schools seem to do a much better job of actually getting jobs for the students that actually pay the money. the taxpayers pay for every community college, city college, state college if you audit the

taxpayers' spending on each of those students, about $14,000 to $17,000 a year. and yet per 60 minutes about 11 months ago they said less than 18% were actually going to work after they finished their program. host: that's harold talking about california's experience. as far as education and the quality of education. the daily caller reporting that american military forces were available for rescue operation not long after the u.s. diplomatic facility in benghazi, libya, came under attack by terrorists on september 11, 2012. that's according to an email from the former secretary of state. two former secretary of state hillary clinton's closest aide. the september 11, 2012 email was sent by then department of defense chief jeremy bash. the text reads i tried on the phone but you were all in with an apparent reference to clinton. after consulting with general dempsey, the joint staff, we have identified the forces that could move to benghazi.

they are spending up as we speak. assuming principles acree to these elements, we'll ask states to procure the approval from the host nation, please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us. some of that is redacted. mary lieu from new jersey. independent line. caller: good morning to you, pedro. how are you doing? host: well. thank you. how are you? caller: i have a bad cold. pardon my froggy voifments i want to put a good word in for our veterans which a lot of people seem to forget about. i wish congress would put forth every effort to do whatever it takes to support our vets. especially when it comes to improving the medical care that they receive. i also want to echo the people that have called in and talked about illegal immigration. we should not have people coming into this country and have our resources being spent on those people when our own people are suffering in many ways.

and i want to say one thing, pedro, in general. one thing that bothers me about all these people in congress, i'm an independent so i'm not one party or the other. hen they start talking about american values, i want to say to them, is it a sign of american values when we don't take proper care of our vets? is it a sign of american values when we allow illegal aliens to take jobs that americans should have to have their children better educated than our own children? to get public assistance that maybe our elderly and disabled need? i think it's time we have a discussion about the fact that the people that are born in this country are coming here legally. these people should at least expect a decent education and a good-paying job. and those are the areas i would want congress to concentrate on. host: that's mary lou in new jersey. the front page of the "washington times" takes a look at a case the supreme court that

dealt with affirmative action. stephen writing that the supreme court justice found themselves emmeshed in a thorny issue of affirmative action action wednesday after hearing a university of texas case that could determine any race-based school admission plans can pass muster under the court's evolving jurisprudence. for decades the court has flirted with the upper boundaries, but shied away from delivering a final blow to racial preferences. it gives justices an opportunity to make them all but unworkable. in one exchange the score storrry goes on, justice scalia questioned whether it was even appropriate to work so hard to recruit black students into top tier schools for which they may not be prepared. i don't think it stands to reason that it is a good thing for the university of texas to admits as many blacks as possible. close quote. in response to that, a direct response by the senate majority leader, harry reid, democrat of nevada, he said on the floor of the senate, that the supreme

court justice scalia yesterday quote made an endorsement of racist theories. he said his comments on affirmative action action yesterday and supreme court oral arguments were racist and suggested, african-american students are inherently intellectually ininterior to other students. goes on to talks more. that's some of the exchange that took place not only at the supreme court but the response from senate minority leader harry reid. rich from scars dale, new york, republican line. hi. caller: i'd like to see -- hia, pedro. good morning. i'd like to see no increase in federal budgets. first of all. and i want a priority on paying down the debt. in order to have a sound government, sound system. we must be debt free. we must pay down the debt. we all feel better about everything when we are solid and not in debt. that goes for the government and

that goes personally. that's my suggestion. host: akron, ohio. here is mark. go ahead. caller: yes. am i on? host: you are. caller: thank you for taking my call, sir. we need to prioritize the united states in general. in every aspect. we spend money on everybody else and we do not spend money on ourselves. we need to spend money on national security. that's true. but our national guard is overseas fighting. we need to stop wars and start building our infrastructure. we need more police officers. need more f.b.i. and more central intelligence agency in order to protect ourselves. that's where our money should be going, sir. thank you very much. host: from flint, michigan, we'll hear from helen. asking about priorities for congressional spending. helen is calling in on our independent line. hi, helen. how are you? caller: hello.

one of the things that really bothers me is what they deep calling -- keep calling corporate welfare. as soon as george bush got in, he immediately started giving subsidies to the oil companies so they could upgrade their facilities for refining. and they never did it. and they raise all their prices. they are making record profits. and we are still paying them. why? why am i working my tail off? i'm a nurse and i do contract work. and i have to pay my own taxes. and i have to take out loans to pay my income tax. and still be able to pay my bills. the government is wasting my money subsidizing oil companies. hello? wal-mart, they are subsidizing them. we bailed out wall street. but nobody bailed out the people. host: that's helen in flint,

michigan. both the house and senate today by the way will receive briefings from the f.b.i. and others on the san bernardino of the both coming in for business today. in fact we now take you to the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, watkins, december 10, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable evan h. jenkins to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from a list submitted minority rity and

leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour. and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. but, in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five mention. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's always a joy for me to kick off the holiday season at the annual christmas parade down main street. as i visited with folks at this year's parade, i was reminded again how special allegheny and its people are. the pride they take in their community is apparent in everything they do. it's especially evident in the hardworking volunteers who donate so much time because they love their hometown and fellow citizens. a great example of this generosity is seen at books and friends, a nonprofit used book

store owned by the friends of the allegheny county library. since 2003, volunteers like alice, joyce, and many others have donated their time at the book store, whose properties provide funding for activities and necessities at the library. this support makes quite a difference and helps the library inform and educate the citizens of allegheny county. . my deepest appreciation to all the friend of the library and all the wonderful volunteers in allegheny county who do so much to make it such a special place to live, work, and visit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. there's been a great deal of discussion about trade agreements, but there is another

important piece of legislation that deals with customs. this is an often obscured element, but it makes a huge difference to be able to manage the hundreds of billions of dollars of products that leave the united states and are imported. the customs bill represents important work by our ways and means committee and our colleagues in the senate finance. finally reaching conclusion. and i'm pleased with many of the key results. it includes items that are not in the headlines but are very important to the people that i represent. for example, the legislation will help our growing outdoor industry by creating new definitions and tariff classifications for recreational performance outer wear. it reduces costly taxes on outdoor footwear which boasts -- both supports the outdoor industry and makes it more for people to get

outside and enjoy our parks and trails. it includes the full enforce act, wirg immediate action to investigate and address tax cheaters and take measures to stop those who continually attempt to circumvent the penalties already imposed upon them. agreements become more complex, so, too, has been trade enforcement. we can no longer rely on a handful of agencies to effectively protect our market from tax cheaters. it requires a whole government approach and this is why it's critical to see the bill permanently establish the interagency trade enforcement center to centralize and enhance trade enforcement efforts. it finally puts into law a ban on the import of goods made with child and forced labor. this will reshape markets and provide additional tools to confront horrific work conditions around the world. very important for me it will help ensure our trade agreements

actually are enforced. a lack of enforcement is a justifiable criticism of people who are skeptical of trade agreements who wonder is it worth the paper that it's printed on to have labor and environmental protections? the greatest obstacle to enforcement has been those of resources. enforcing trade agreements is expensive. it's time consuming. it's highly complex. that's why i fought hard to include in this legislation elements that ift interviewsed along with senator maria cantwell the trade stronger act. creates a trade enforcement and capacity building fund which would not only provide more resources for the enforcement of labor and -- of labor and environment violations, but help with the fund managed by the ustr be accessible governmentwide. not only for enforcement, but for in-country capacity

building. helping our current and future trading partners implement the labor and environmental provisions they have committed to. this is an important step forward because regardless of what one feels about a particular trade treaty, i think everyone agrees they ought to be enforced. this customs bill in addition to promoting the trade process more effectively and providing relief for some inequitable treatment for product so important to my constituents, establishes more resources to make sure our trade agreements are, in fact, enforced. this has been the result of a long and arduous negotiation, but done in the spirit of cooperation and good will. i particularly want to thank the efforts of speaker paul ryan and ways and means committee chair kevin brady who have worked with me in the spirit of cooperation to make sure the enforcement provisions are effective. i appreciate this. i think this will be an achievement that we all should

support because we will all benefit from it. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise to tell the story of katherine frederickson of maryland. katherine is one of the tens of thousands of women that had been harmed by the permanent sterilization twice, the medical device known as esure. it was recommended as the optimal birth control solution for katherine. despite a pre-existing auto immune condition and known nickel al letter gy. after the procedure she felt severe pain, extreme bleeding, vomiting and rashes caused by the nickel-based device. after three weeks of pain and discomfort, katherine paid $7,000 out of pocket to remove the device. one coil was found in her uterus. she lost two months' of work and of her life.

cath's health has never been the same. i rise as a voice for the esure sisters to tell this chamber their stories are real. their pain is real. and that their fight is real. mr. speaker, my bill, the e-free act can halt this tragedy by removing this dangerous device from the market. too many women have been harmed. so i urge my colleagues to join this fight and to join the bill. because stories like katherine's are too important to ignore. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, or five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. ever since the terrorist attack in san bernardino, a leftist politicians have called for more restrictions on gun ownership for americans. these are the same politicians who have worked for years to

open our nation to unprecedented and indiscriminate immigration from hot beds of islamic extremism. the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. if one person in that room in san bernardino had been able to return fire, many innocent lives would have been saved. but californians are subject to the most restrictive gun laws in the country, making it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment right to defend themselves and in a society denied its right of self-defense, the gunman is king. i repeat, the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. yet the president and his followers seek to increase the number of terrorists entering through porous borders and lax immigration laws while at the same time seeking to decrease the number of armed americans. their latest ploy was announced by the president on sunday and

has been parroted by his congressional allies this week to the point of disrupting the work of the house. in the president's words, congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list should buy a gun. he could ask what could possibly be the argument against that? while serving in the california state senate a decade ago, i discovered suddenly i couldn't check in for a flight. when i asked why i was told i was on this government list. the experience was absolutely calf can-esque. why am i on that list? we can't tell you. what criteria do you use? that's classified. how do i get off that list? you can't. i soon discovered that another california state senator had been placed on that list. a few months later u.s. senator edward kennedy found himself on that list. i at least had the office of the sergeant at arms of the state senate to work through, something an ordinary american would not. even so, it took months working through that office with

repeated petitions to the government to get my name removed from that list. and the farce of it all was this, i was advised in the meantime just to fly under my middle name, which i did without incident. in my case it turns out it was a case of mistaken identity of the i.r.a. activist the british government was mad at. this could happen to any american. the point is this during this administration the i.r.s. has been used extensively to harass and intimidate ordinary americans for exercising their first amendment rights. what the president proposes is that on the whim of any federal bureaucrat an american can be denied their second amendment rights as well with no opportunity to confront their accuser, contest the evidence, or avail themselves of any of their other due process rights under the constitution. the congress september that the left is seeking to -- concept that the left is seeking to instill in our law is that mere suspicion by a bureaucrat is sufficient to deny law-abiding

american citizens their constitutional rights under the law. given the left's demonstrated hostility to freedom of speech and due process of law, it's not hard to see where this is leading us. i support the president's proposal if it established a judicial process where an individual could only be placed on this list once he had been accorded his constitutional rights to be informed of the charges, to be given his day in court, to be accorded the right to confront his accuser and contest the evidence against him and submit himself to a decision by a jury of his pearce. that's the farthest thing from the left's agenda. the president's proposal would have done nothing to stop the carnage in san bernardino where the terrorists were not on any watch list. one was admitted from saudi arabia after vetting that the president keeps assuring us is rigorous and thorough. several of the guns used in this massacre weren't even acquired directly but rather through a third party. of course the american people don't want terrorists to have

guns. the american people don't want terrorists in our country in the first place. but the president's policies have left our nation's gate wide open while he seeks to take from americans their means of self-defense. so i leave off as i began. the best defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. that's what the second amendment is all about. it is an absolutely essential pillar of our security. our constitution is our best defense of all and it must be defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to raise awareness about holocaust survivors' continued quest for justice. an ever elusive goal still nearly three quarters of a

century after living through the crimes of modern humanity's darkest period. though it is said that the morrall universe arc bends towards justice, time is not a luxury we can afford any longer for our elderly holocaust survivors. of the approximately half a million holocaust survivors, around half of them live at or near poverty. can you imagine that? holocaust survivors should be able to live out the remaining days in comfort. and with the knowledge that their long sought justice has finally been achieved. recently an agreement was reached between the government of france and the united states regarding victims of holocaust related deportations during the nazi era. the french rail company, sncf, knowingly and willfully transfor thed -- transported tens of

thousands of holocaust victims to concentration camps and near certain death during the second world war. they were paid to do this. r over 70 years, sncf, the french rail company and french company eluded any and all responsibility for these actions. for years i have been fighting for justice for all victims of the holocaust and on this issue in particular i have joined representative carolyn maloney of new york as she attempted to shepherd the holocaust rail justice act through congress over the past few sessions. . i want to thank the gentlelady from new york for her leadership and unyielding effort to hold sncf accountable for its heinous actions. while the agreement reached over sncf, remember, that's the french rail company, culpability in the death of tens of thousands of jews are

not the optimal solution, it is imperative that we do hold these perpetrators accountable and that we win justice for as many holocaust survivors and their heir -- heirs as possible. however, this is important that holocaust survivors and their families are made aware of this agreement and the claims process. many do not know of this. for more information, questions, or to file a claim, the state department has set up website, www. state.gov/deportationclaims.com . i know that's very difficult. but you can call 202-776-8385 r send an email to deportationclaim@state.gov. that's a lot to take in. but contact your congressional representative and we can help. i urge everyone to spread the word, to make sure that every holocaust survivor eligible

gets an opportunity file a claim. i want to thank the continued efforts and the support of many holocaust survivors that i'm blessed to have in my congressional district, who have been at the forefront in the fight for justice for survivors and their heirs. good friends like david murmelstein, alex gross, herby caroliner, jack ruben, so many others, they have seen the unforgettable. they have lived through the unthinkable. yet they continue steadfast in the fight for justice against those who have committed the unforgivable and the unthinkable. i also want to thank others who have pursued justice for these individuals at every turn, like my good friend and long-time constituent, sam duben. sam has been instrumental in highlighting the fraud of the claims conference that we know now very clearly occurred over

decades. deprived holocaust survivors of at least tens of millions of dollars and the real numbers are likely even higher. next year, mr. speaker, i plan to introduce my bill once again to allow survivors to have their day in court. that's all the bill does. to have their day in court because we now know that the claims conference process has failed so many of the holocaust survivors. mr. speaker, time is of the essence. we owe survivors and their heirs every opportunity to achieve judgment i urge my colleagueses to continue this fight on behalf -- colleagues to continue this fight on behalf of the remaining holocaust survivors and their heirs, to get the word out to their constituents and local community leaders. if you know someone who may be eligible to receive compensation under this incredible horrific act done by the french rail company, to transport victims to certain death, please direct them to

the state department website, the deadline is may 31, next year. let's get the word out as soon and as far as possible. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, foveb for five minutes -- for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly want to start by thanking my good friend and colleague from florida for her efforts in trying to make sure that we are doing all we can for the holocaust survivors. mr. speaker, there is no doubt that these are very turbulent and fast-moving times. and as we train our focus on isis, however, i think it would be a very foolish mistake if we lose sight of the terror threat from iran. the world's greatest state sponsor of terror. in the past week, two alarming developments have exposed why iran cannot be trusted. first, a december 2 report from the international atomic energy

agency revealed that iran had previously been working on nuclear weapons. that's right, mr. speaker. despite iran's repeated instistence that its nuclear program had only been for peaceful purposes, the iaea report makes clear that iran had an active nuclear weapons program. in short, iran lied. and it has been telling a very big lie for some time. this deceit is precisely why we must not close the book on uncovering iran's past nuclear efforts. second, mr. speaker, it's now been reported that on november 21, iran tested a ballistic missile. one capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. this is a breach of multiple united nations security council resolutions and is an obvious de-- is in obvious defines of the ban on missile work that was part of the nuclear agreement. this is iran's second such launch of a ballistic missile

since the conclusion of the nuclear agreement. regrettably, no such action has been taken against iran for that first test in october. instead, the u.n. security council is still debating on how to respond. they're still debating. what message does that send? mr. speaker, iran cannot be given a pass for these flagrant provocations. a failure to forcibly respond now with repercussions will only encourage iran to incrementally cheat in the future. again and again as it already has. the unavoidable truth is that simply looking the other way, so as not to ruffle any feathers in tehran, will neither bring peace nor and he to belligerent behavior from the iranians. we know that iran cannot be trusted. plain and simple. we know that if iran will continue to test the world's resolve -- -- we know that iran will continue to test the world's resolve. the question is whether the

world will even be interested in responding. it's time for our voices to be heard, loud and clear. the united states must step orward and lead. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

i don't know how to sir come navigate. this -- sir come navigate this. i know we're talking about northcom and south com. i would ask the same question about national guard and reserves. i was a governor, former governor, i had, you know, i and i would uard have gladly shared with the president. if the only reason we have the reserve doing what they're doing and the guard doing what they're doing is because of separation of oversight, doesn't make any sense to me. we can save a tremendous ament and use our guard and reserves in a much more, i think,

effective role. and much more cost effective bum i don't see that happening either. so whoever wants to chime in, please do. >> thank you. first, on the question. i actually believe that giving the chairman, hopefully a very capable individual, direct authority, executive authority, would change the dynamic in what you're saying. mr. schwartz: right now you're saying that that person doesn't have. that at the moment he doesn't have that. he can encourage and persuade, but he can't compel. that's not a business-like approach to the problem. secondly, with regard to the guard and reserve, it is, a, it is at least in partial a -- in part a function of statutory authority, as you're aware as former governor and others here on the dais. the reserve is a title 10

entity which is responsive to the service leadership and the guard of course is title 3 , a little more complex arrangement. and i think it's safe to say that the -- to serve at least the army and the air force have a preference for maintaining both of those entities, because access to the reserve is cleaner and more expeditious in most cases. than it is in some cases, with the guard. >> a couple of thoughts, sir. you do touch on, i think, an important aspect of all this. which is reforming pay benefits. i think those authorities derive from all of you here on capitol hill. mr. stavridis: based on proposals that can come. i think you're spot on to look

at, why do we pay the same amount? it really is, in my view, ripe for new look. ou can drive it from here. i hope you spur them to do it. in terms of authorities to really make changes, i think providing the secretary deaf more authority to go into -- secdeaf more authority to go into government and remove civilians that have been there, simple authorities over the g.s. system, i think would be helpful in creating efficiencies. in terms of the guard and reserve, to the degree the committee wants to really lick your finger, reach up and touch the third rail, you could look at an alternative model had in the maritime world. we have an air guard and a land guard, if you will, but we have a coast guard. coast guard resides, as you all

well know, in the department of homeland security. it's a very different model. if you want to look at efficiencies and structures, that might be an interesting model to look at. as to whether it pertains in the air and on the land, as it seems to work quite effectively, in my view, at sea. so, these are huge questions. in terms of, do you need a commission, i would say what this committee is doing right now is the basis of driving these thoughts forward. i hope you continue at this. ms. fischer: recently a friend and i have been having discussions on a 1984 speech by casper weinberger which of course became known as the weinberger doctrine. the third rule that he laid out would be that military forces should only be committed after

the military and political objectives have been clearly defined. there's been criticism lately because of recent campaigns that we've seen in afghanistan and syria and criticisms that rhaps we haven't seen that end result, that end state really clearly defined. i think in future conflicts, especially when we look at the cyberarea, it's going to be difficult, it's going to be a calc there to be able to define what's ahead. i guess i would like to hear from all of you, if you believe these evolving trends are going laying e how we look at out those objectives in the future. and are we going to be able to look at a comprehensive strategy, a comprehensive plan

for the future, or are we going to have to look at it more incrementally as we move forward, and what are the risks that would be involved with that? if i could start with you, general. mr. stavridis: as i see it, madam speaker -- mr. schwartz: as i see it, ma'am, the role of civilian leadership is to decide the why and the where. and the role of the uniforms is o offer advice on the how. both are essential ingredients of success. and the desire for clarity in the why and the where is important to those who serve in uniform. without a doubt.

i think the clear thing here is at there is a need for understanding that these are complex circumstances. but it is important for there to be support for the mission. and if i may offer an unsolicited piece of advice, the absence of an authorization for use of military force in the current setting is less han ideal. mr. stavridis: i agree with general schwartz. clearly ideally, the ideal structure, senator, would be crisp, clear direction from the political level. could he heernt strategy that's been explained to the american people, has a reasonable level of support in our democracy, then the military conducts the

detailed planning, which really is the precision piece of this going forward. how to make that link more effective, i think a lot of what we're discussing today would be helpful in that regard. the degree to which that hour -- that our military can be given that kind of strategic clarity will be the degree to which we're successful in our engagements oversales. ms. fischer: would you both say that that is a rule that we as members of the senate should ontinue to require, to limit risk, even into a future where the nature of warfare may change? ms. schwartz: yes. ms. fischer: dr. lamb, if you have comments, please.

mr. lamb: one of the jobs i had in the pentagon was helping to prepare the contingency planning guidance and overseaing the nation's -- overseeing the nation's war plans. one of my observations was that the operational plans were crystal clear compared to the strategic guidance that we often are able to promulgate. i know that some of your previous witnesses have talked about strategy from the point of view of the need for more gray matter, greater strategists, better strategists, etc. my view is a little bit different. i think there are political and bureaucratic forces at work that tend to milltate against strategy. you ask, why don't we have a clear end state, why don't we have a clear center of graphicity, why don't we marshall our resources against that center of gravity, etc. i think the answer is two fold. first of all, in formulating a strategy with that kind of clarity, right now there are great political and even

bureaucratic disincentives for that kind of clarity. if you say there are three ways to attack this problem and we're going to choose door b, so to speak, someone will always criticize you for not having taken option a or option c. so the safer thing to do is to say, we're going to do all those things. in the war on terrorism, we're going to emphasize strategic communications and we're going to go after the terrorists themselves and we're going to dissuade state sponsors and we're going to -- and on and on and on. if you look at all of our public strategy documents, they're just long laundry lists of objectives. you don't have that clarity. when it comes to implementing the strategy, you similarly have bureaucratic forces at play. i am firmly convinced after a year of study that a lot of popular opinion about what went wrong in iraq is in fact wrong. because of the point we just made about formulating strategy, if you have real strategy, it really exists, not on paper but in the minds of

the key decision makers. because they can't promulgate the strategy for the reasons i just mentioned. so it's in their minds. so if you're going to get a clear, cohesive implementation of the strategy, everybody has to be working together. and have a mind meld, if you will. that did not happen in iraq. and we could go into detail on why that did not happen. but the point is, we had people in one part of our national security system working very hard to go in one direction and people on the ground in baghdad, supported by other people, trying to go in a different direction. and the results were not good. when it comes to strategy, i think we have a political and bureaucratic problems. there's one reason i favor these cross functional teams. i think they can put the strategy together and have a better chance of implementing it in a cohesive and unified way. ms. fischer: thank you. mr. mccain: thank you, i

appreciate -- mr. cane: thank you. i appreciate senator fisher bringing up the weinberg authorization. i think there are many reasons why an authorization is really important. one is just the legal requirements of article 1 and article 2. the second is the sign of resolve that you show to adversaries, allies, and spembley your troops. mr. kaine: the third is the weinberg document. it helps you clash out at the beginning what is the mission nd goal. congress usually doesn't just accept an authorization verbatim. congress rejected president bush's originally presented version and batted it around and came up with something different. the war against isil is one that we started on august 8, 2014. the president, to protecty i ziddies and the american cons late. want couple of weeks it was -- ok, now we have to go on offense. but we didn't have the

discussion. we didn't have the administration's presentation of the rationale and then the withering cross examination that that deserves. i fought the president for not sending an authorization to congress for essentially six months after the beginning of the war and it's now been 10 months since the president sent an authorization. we still really haven't had the discussion that you ought to have at the front. if you're going to ask people to risk their lives. i think the weinberger doctrine is a good way to look at it. a couple of questions just to clarify. you've all offered some interesting ideas. the cyberforce, just walk through, if you're looking 15 years ahead, how does that look? there's a force, there's a command, is there a cyberacademy? most of us have just done our service cademy nominations, is there a cyberacademy? talk to us about what that would look like. mr. stavridis: i can. i think it's small. it's probably numbered in thousands of members, so quite small. less than 10,000 probably. i think what you have today is each of the service academies

is building inside itself a small cyberacademy. this is kind of the inefficiency of it, that i think we need to overcome. so, yes, i think there would be an educational pipeline. i think there would be a career path. i think you'd have to get away from some of the, if you will, traditional, go to boot camp, shave your head, crawl your way up a hierarchal organization. i'm not sure that's going to attract the kind of people we need in a cyberforce. so it probably has somewhat to erent paid benefits back the question a moment ago about are we paying the right people the right amount. this may be a highly paid cadre. i think probably the closest analog to what we have is special forces. and that's roughly what it would look like. i do believe it's time we get after this. because i think our vulnerabilities are significant in this area. mr. kaine: second question.

another idea you had, i thought it was incolleague treeging, the idea of an ambassadorial level, a civilian deputy within gather there's an unstated assumption about the nature of the military mission now that so much of it is diplomat sifment the nations that want us to send a special purpose throughout africa to train their militaries. so much of it is kind of on the border between diplomacy and military or working out with the japanese, the okinawa situation, that's a diplomatic as much as military. is that sort of your thinking behind the recommendation? mr. stavridis: it is. the structure, as it was in effect when i was at southern command, and while i was at u.s. european command, i had a military deputy, and i think you need to continue to have a military deputy for the conduct -- operation lings. political had, a advisor, we had a senior

ambassador who was our civilian deputy. and he or she was capable of doing that kind of engagement, diplomatic work, working with host nations, helped resolve imnumerable individual challenges in, if you will, the smart power side of the equation. it's cost and it also is a strong signal to the interagency about how we want to work together to address problems. mr. kaine: sounds like a dean idea. dr. lamb, one last question for you. the idea that you advocate in your opening testimony about having some primary responsibility for irregular war, rather than everybody feeling like the irregular wars are sort of a lesser responsibility, which means we're not really preparing for that, talk a little bit about that. mr. lamb: i think we have a parallel with regards to

special operation forces in general. all the services, before we combine them, had special operations forces. they knew what they wanted to use them for, etc. but they weren't a priority for the services. so congress in its wisdom and i think rightly so created u.s.s. co -- socom and we now have world forces. the direct action, go there, go to a site, get what you need done and come back. we have unparallel capabilities. and those have only improved over the last 10 or 15 years. but when it comes to working by, with or through host nation forces, he we're not quite as sharp. there's a number complex reasons for that which have been discussed by many individuals but i think the committee needs to take that issue up with socom. they've told congress they think the indirect mission is more important and they intend to improve their indirect capabilities, but whether or not that's happening i think is a matter of great import.

with regard to the marine corps, not every problem, unfortunately, not every low end of the conflict spectrum problem could be handled with a small special operations team. so the question is, who in the department of defense, amongst all our forces is, -- is really responsible for being prepared for that mission? time and time again we go on these missions, whether it's panama, you know, somalia, we go on these missions not really prepared for them. kind of learn ofing on the job, seeing what the situation demands, not having the equipment as secretary gates found. not only not having the equipment, but not being able to generate it quickly in response even to urgent requests from forces in the field. i think we can do better than that. the marine corps from my point of view would work well on that regard, for a number of reasons. it has a history of greater involvement in these. it's already kind of a joint force with amphibious air, land capabilities that are well

integrated. so there's a lot of advantage there. i think we've come to a point where we can't afford all the duplication we have without some clarification of roles in the department. so this is something that made sense to me. mr. kaine: thank you. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. admiral, i wanted to ask you about your prior position as commander of south com and we had testimony this spring from general john kelly, the commander of south com, about how the networks are working over our southern border. yotyot the sophisticated -- ms. ayotte: the assist cated smuggling networks that i can assure you now rufrl being used to devastate my state with how heroin's coming into my state. but also the issue that he raised as well was that he believed that adherence to isis have called for infiltration of our southern border. so i wanted to ask you about your thoughts on that.

in terms of the use of those networks to not only on things like drugs, but also as we look at this terrorism challenge, is this something we should be worried about? mr. stavridis: absolutely. i have called this convergence. it's the convergence of these drug routes which are extremely efficient with the possibility of using them to move terrorists or, at the real dark end of the spectrum, weapons of mass destruction. along with the narcotics. so when those drug routes and those higher level threats converge, convergence, i think we are at great risk. what we should do about it is exactly what we're talking about here. think holistically about how you create a network to combat a network. this is a very sophisticated, private-public, if you will, collaboration with international abilities ranging

from moving submarines with 10 tons of cocaine, to aircraft, etc., etc. so you need to bring the interagency to bear, you need to bring special operations to bear. and i think this also argues for merging northcom and south com. because it creates one sphere through which these routes are oming at us. so there's a quick basket of ideas. ms. ayotte: i appreciate it. i also wanted to, given -- not to pick you on you today, admiral, but given your prior position as certainly the commander of nato, this -- what we've seen recently with iran, n october 10, iran conducted a ballistic missile test, medium range missile, and then also recently we've learned that they've tested a missile on november 21. and as i look at these miss --

first of all, clear violation of u.n. resolutions. also, from what we understand, the reports suggest that the missile tested last month has a range of approximately 1,200 miles. so, that would give iran a capability of course of hitting eastern europe and places that we're concerned about in the nato context. i've been asking, and i've asked, why aren't we responding to this? and what do you think our response should be? should there be some response? it strikes me as a very important issue, because it's already, in light of the jcpoa, they're violating existing u.n. resolutions. and it seems to me, if there isn't some response from us, that they're going to continue not only this does not bode well for the jcpoa but also to continue to develop icbm capability, as you know, that

could go even further to hit the united states. mr. stavridis: as i said, often, we ought to be concerned about iran's nuclear program. but it is a much bigger problem than that. iran views itself as an imperial power. dating back 2 1/2 millennia. they are currently in control of five capitals in this region . the jcpoa i think is going to shower resources upon them. and so they are a highly dangerous opponent and will be going forward. so what should we do? first, we should hold iran to the commitments they have made in the jcpoa. if that means that agreement is broken, and we therefore return to a sanctions regime, we need to face that. secondly, we need to use all of our clandestine, our intelligence capability to truly understand what's going on in iran.

thirdly, we need to stand with our sunni allies in the region. and of course with israel. who are going to be the bullwork against this kind of expansion. fourthly in europe, as you well know, i took you around there, we looked at the missile defense system, we should continue to move in that direction. that's kind of a beginning but i think iran will continue to be a geopolitical threat to the united states. ms. ayotte: thank you. ms. shea-porter: thank you very much, both for your service and or being here today. ms. shea recent: dr. lamb, you talk about flattening the structure of the military to set up special teams that have commitment to mission as opposed to what often interagency groups bring to

task. ms. shaheen: i really like that idea. i think one of the things, if we look at private -- the private sector, one of the things they've figured out is that the top-down approach, hierarchal approach, is not as good for decision making for what they're trying to accomplish as a team approach. but one of the challenges, and i guess maybe i ought to ask both general schwartz and admiral, what you think the challenges are of trying to move from what has been such a traditional hierarchal structure to one that allows that team approach to really address the challenges that we're facing, and general schwartz, do you want to start? mr. schwartz: sure. i don't know if you've had someone before you, but here's an example, maybe the best recent example of how the team

approach produces extraordinary results. with his organization and he's written two books and what have you. but the bottom line is that chris lamb's model does work. there's evidence of that. and there is a new generation of military leadership that gets it, i think. and we should support that, encourage it, and through your oversight, mandate it. mr. stavridis: core question going forward. what makes it difficult is the built-in structure of the military. this is an organization where a million people get up in the morning and put on the same outfit. i mean, this is why we call it uniforms. you've got to start cracking that mentality. we will, i think, general schwartz is spot on, because

there is a generational shift. the question here is, this is not an on and off switch between a highly chaotic silicon valley-like entity or a president bush-style military. we need to deal that more toward team approaches, interagency, international cooperation, strategic communication, all of those smart power things, without losing our ability to deliver lethal combat power. i think we can do that. we need to think of it as a thing that's turning in the direction you identified. ms. shaheen: you talked about the coast guard having a different model. one of the things i remember after the b.p. oil spill, when they were talking about the response to rescuing people, no, i'm so sorry, not the oil spill, hurricane katrina, was that the coast guard was very effective in responding, i think both there and on the b.p. oil spill. because they were able to make

decisions on spot without aving to check with anybody. what's different about the coast guard model and how do you transfer what's effective about that, or should we be looking at transferring what's effective about that to address some of the other challenges, building that teamwork capacity? lamb lamb -- mr. lamb: the coast guard, i think, would say, and admiral would speak to this more directly, i think they would say their leadership model and their training and education model is different than some of the other services. because of their very nature, they're used to thinking about problems and a cross-functional way. they both serve the department of defense in war and law enforcement and peace time. they have some natural advantages in that respect. ms. shaheen: can you explain, when you say their leadership model is different, their training is different, what's different that gives them that

different ability to focus? mr. stavridis: they begin their lives at the coast guard academy with an appreciation of the fact that they're but one entity within the department of homeland security. which has 19 different entities within it. they know they straddle that border between title 10 combat operations, in which they participated heroically many, many times, as well as law enforcement, as well as rescue at sea, as well as environmental. so their mission, their eithows, their mentality is simply one of cooperation, working together. it's hard to find a better integrated organization than the coast guard. i think we could learn a lot from that. mr. lamb: they have much greater experience with state and local leadership than typically do the active duty

forces. ms. shaheen: thank you all very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. your years of service, decades of service to our country. mr. sullivan: wanted to focus a ttle bit, admiral, on your recommendation perhaps with regard to northcom and southcom merging, with a bit of a focus on the arctic. general schwartz, i know you've spent a lot of time in alaska and have a sense that we've had a lot of discussions here. senator king and i and the chairman and a lot of others are interested in what's going on in the arctic. in this ndaa there's a requirement for the secretary of defense to put together antarctic operations plan for the first time, we think, is progress. just given your background,

actually any of the panelists, you know, one of the many challenges that we have up there is that when you look at e arctic, it's the classic seams of different combatant commands. ere its forces are opcomto pay com. its threat is primarily in ucom, so i'm sure you'll notice the massive russian mr.up, just yesterday there was another article about a new missile defense system that they're putting in the arctic, four new combatberry grades. 11 new air fields ornings and on and on. huge exercises. and we're looking at getting rid of the only airborne b.c.t. in the entire asia-pacific and in the arctic. and as you know, general schwartz, that takes a lot of training to have your forces up there, well trained to be able to operate in 30 below zero. so i would just really appreciate your views on the

arctic, but also how that northcom, southcom merger idea would either enhance or diminish, we don't think it should be much more diminished, which think there -- we think there should be more attention on the arctic given all that's going on up there right now. mr. schwartz: i think it's important that the arctic be a sign as a mission to one of the combatant commands. that has yet to happen. it should transpire. that's point one. int two is a more pedestrian concern, but we only have one operating icebreaker. this is unthinkable. for the united states of america. and clearly that coast guard that m, we need more of

and we need the other kinds of wherewithal to allow us to assert our sovereignty in the arctic. mr. sullivan: we have one and the russians have 40. mr. schwartz: you're correct. russia has 38 plus two icebreakers. the chinese, who are not antarctic power, to say the least, have 16 icebreakers. etc. the danes, a nation of five million, have eight icebreakers. mr. stavridis: so this is actually beyond a pedestrian point. it's very good one. i agree with assigning it to u.s. northern command in its entirety. i think that it would not be diminished by the merger between northcom and southcom. when you look at the level of activity to the south and what northcom is doing, i think that could easily be folded into a unified command responsibility and i think it would be valuable because it would further solidify our sbegrathes with canada -- integration with canada, with whom we ought to

be partnering in a very significant way, as you know better than anybody. in the north. lastly, we should be working with nato to ensure that nato perceives, this is a nato frontier. this is a nato border. canada and the united states are nato nations. we need to think of that border as importantly as we do of the borders of the alliance in eastern europe and to the south on the mediterranean. mr. sullivan: could you talk to just the strategic location of those forces up there? because when you talk about having completely with regard to unified under northcom, do you think that the operational forces should also be under northcom, given that they're very oriented toward the asia pacific and as general schwartz and i know you know, sir, the strategic location of alaska is such that those forces, those air forces, those army forces, can really be anywhere in the northern hemisphere within

seven, eight hours, whether it's korea or the baltics. would you mind just talking on that for a bit, sir. mr. schwartz: quickly. if the constraint of assigned forces to the domestic force star can be overcome, that makes sense. to assign those assets in alaska that have the opportunity both to reinforce america's claims in the arctic, as well the as be deployable for other missions that might be assigned, is certainly the right aprofmente -- approach. mr. stavridis: we talk about the unified command plan, which kind of divides the world among the combatant commanders. the other important document is called the forces for document. which actually apportions and assigns those forces. it's renegotiated typically every two years. i think as general schwartz indicates, that would be a very

important new way to think bout force assignment. mr. sullivan: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of quick points. amen on the icebreakers. it's preposterous that we don't have more significant icebreaker capacity, particularly given what's happening in the arctic in terms of the opening up of the ice. secondly, would affle you agree that it would bed a vein tageous to the u.s. to accede to the law of the sea treaty? mr. stavridis: because i'm an admiral i get to go first. >> yes, sir. mr. schwartz: i agree with that. mr. lamb: agnostic, sir. mr. king: all right. two to one, we'll take those odds. mr. schwartz: could i ask whying a not it --ing a noes tick? -- agnostic? mr. lamb: i'm worried about our

protection of freedom to travel around the world. the way other nations are interpreting their areas and their control, ice cube: not sure of the impact of the law of the sea treaty on those kinds of issues.

senator king: it was based upon an understanding it would be enforced. and i think this is could be interpreted as an early test of our resolve. i generally take it you agree. mr. lamb: i certainly do. if it's a violation of u.n. resolutions, we should call that out. without hesitation. senator king: thank you. >> i agree with general schwartz. i have been hopeful of this agreement but i am skeptical it will be the right step for u.s. national security. this certainly gives weight to the negative side of that equation. senator king: thank you. dr. lamb, in your prepared remarks you talked about how we need to be thinking about

unconventional warfare and suggest several areas. one that i want to emphasize you talk about persuasive communication. in my view there are two fronts to the war with isis. one is military, the other is ideas. are badly losing the war of ideas. it strikes me that's till a huge gap to our national tradgedy. i know we are doing some things but my sense is it doesn't have the priority it should. would you agree with that? mr. lamb: i absolutely would. i think there's two issues here. one substantive and one organizational. organizationally we are not well organized to treat the issues to communications. our public affairs, public diplomacy, and then what used to be called -- senator king: usia was abolished 15 years ago. mr. lamb: yes. we don't have a dedicated organization to deal with this anymore. we are confused about the difference between these different -- americans are very

sensitive about government control or use of information. and we are losing this game. i would actually concur. on the substantive front, we are having some real political problems with deciding the best way to deal with the issue as general dempsey once said with the fact that some terrorists happen to also be muslim. and islamic. and we haven't -- we want to emphasize that the islamic religion is peaceful and tolerant. so on and so forth. we do have this strain within that religion that sees the world differently. our ability to deal with that in a fort right way -- forthright way has been handicapped. i'm surprised by the number of senior leaders who have said in their memoirs from their tours of duty during the past 15 years that this is an achilles' heel for us and we still haven't

effectively identified the enemy we are up against and how best to deal with that. how to turn that issue back into something that the islamic world debates itself about what it's going to do about this strain within it. i think substantive and organizationally we are on our heels in this regard. couldn't agree more. senator king: ultimately, that's where this battle will be won or lost in my view because there are now, pick a number, 100,000, 200,000 jihadists. there are 1.6 billion muslims. that's the battlefield. and it can only be one within the muslim community, but we have to lead it. it seems to me. or we at least need to work with the worldwide nonjihadist muslim community. general schwartz: i would close by saying we need to give voice to those who have escaped isil

-occupied areas. senator king: seems to me a natural. admiral stavridis: just one last. it is a battlefield but it's also a marketplace. we have to compete. we have to recognize that. that's a very important aspect of how we communicate. we are pretty good at dominating markets. we should bring some of those skills to bear. senator king: it's ironic in the extreme we invented facebook and twitter and we are losing on that front. thank you very much, gentlemen. i have a lot of other questions about the organization but we'll get to those later. thank you. >> fud' like to ask an additional question. senator king: one additional quefment maybe this is for the record. you're talking about -- we are talking about combining several of the combatant commands, northcome and southcome, europe. are there any savings to be had? if so, we'd like to quantify them because in f.y. 2017 we are

going to face about a $15 billion shortfall from where we would like to be. and that's real money. we are going to have to find someplaces where it can be saved in staff, personnel, noncombatant kind of areas. perhaps you have an immediate esponse or for the record. admiral stavridis: in the business world we call those synergies. i can't offer a number, but certainly there are those in the department who could answer that question for you. and would recommend you press for that. admiral stavridis: question, there are savings. i would recommend not only pressing the department but getting somebody on the outside to take a good look at that. senator king: thank you very much. appreciate your t >> i appreciate the comments about the hearts and minds. first you got to kill them. senator mccain: as long as the

perception is out there that they are winning, then they will also win in other areas as well. and i believe that one of the reasons why these young men are most attractive is they think they are joining a winning cause. and events such as at san bernardino and paris are one of the greatest recruitment tools they have. and until we beat them, on the battlefield, i think that our messaging efforts will be severely hindered, but i also agree that it's just going to be long fight on using the most advanced technologies. i'd also point out that we still have a big problem with the ability now of identify tiss to be contacted and direct the young man or young woman to a

secure site. that's not right. and i see heads nodding. as senator king mentioned, that is not recorded. so maybe -- senator king: i agree with the chairman on both fronts. thank you. admiral stavridis: i agree completely. i think this also gets into the cyberpiece of this. there are ways that we can track, control, eradicate in the cyberworld. i also particularly agree the leading edge of this has to be hard power. in the long game it's a mix of hard power, smart power. but at the moment dealing with the forces that are arrayed against us from the islamic state, we have to go hard now. senator mccain: doctor, did you have any comment? mr. lamb: for myself, i think this is just a good example of what i was referring to on the

indirect approach in special operations. the military information support forces, if you look how they are raised, trained, equipped, it's not to the same levels of proficiency that the other aspects of socom are. i think there is room for improvement there. senator mccain: thank you. doctor, as a graduate of the institution in which you are presently employed, when it had the correct name, i want to thank you for your continued good work and i thank admiral and general for your many years of service. this will probably be the conclusion of a series of hearings that we are having as we try to address this whole issue of reform, ability to get into the challenge, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. i believe that goldwater nicholls could never have come

from within the pentagon. i think everybody agree was that. and we intend on a bipartisan basis to work with the pentagon and secretary carter as closely as we possibly can. but i think it's pretty well-known that we have to lead. and it's not to the exclusion of the pentagon, but it certainly is a responsibility that i think that we have and i'm proud of the modest measures that we have taken in this year's, but next year is really where we can really make a significant impact and the series of hearings that we are now concluding with i think gives us an excellent basis for the kinds of reforms that need to be made. it just is disappointing to our

constituents when i go back to arizona and somebody asks me about a $2 billion cost overrun of one weapon system. hard to defend. hard to justify. and then when we see the combat capabilities going down and yet staffs and support going up, and we have still not -- we are still unable to conduct an audit successfully of the department of defense, and no one can tell this committee who the -- how many contract personnel are employed, pretty large task ahead of us. but if we pursue the principles that you have recommended to us today, some of those other aspects of this challenge will follow. so you have been very helpful.

admiral, i want -- i have asked the panel yesterday if you-all would prepare notes of condolences to be delivered to senator reed on saturday afternoon, it would be much appreciated. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

admiral stavridis: john mccain also chaired yesterday an armed services committee hearing looking at fighting isis with the defense secretary. that's available on our video library at c-span.org. as is this hearing which just wrapped up. the u.s. house should be gaveling back in at noon eastern today. we expect legislative work to get under way at 2:30. sevens bills on the agenda. including a two-year coast guard authorization later in the week continuing federal funding, which expires at midnight. they'll take up a short-term, five-day measure expected on friday. more work expected next week. follow live coverage of the house here on c-span. when they gavel back in. in about 15 midgets or so we expect -- minutes or so we expect a briefing from house speaker paul ryan. we'll take you there live once that gets under way. alex of nbc news tweets that speaker ryan told republican members this morning that we'll take care of 9/11 responders in one of the year-end bills but didn't get into details.

more details about the agenda coming up at 11:30 with paul ryan. until then here on c-span, a look at this morning's "washington journal." host: >> washington journal continues. joining us now is representative robin kelly from illinois. she serves a second district. she is on the chair of the gun violence prevention task force. guest: good morning. host: could you tell our viewers a little bit about yourself and your background? what is the main goal of your work echoed -- work echoed i replaced jesse jackson junior. i'm from the second conditional district. my district is reversed -- diverse geographically. actually, people initially said that the gentleman from chicago, but i'm not from chicago two thirds of my district is a suburban and rural. the other third is the city of chicago. and my background, i have a lot

of government. i worked on the local level, or live now, the state level, the county level the chief of staff. illinois state treasurer, chief administrative officer. i'm the the present of cook county. also worth been for four years. host: as far as the task force you have been designed to set up, what is the goal? guest: i am not the only vice chair, but there are a number of us, really, the goal is gun violence prevention, there are some definite things we're trying to accomplish like background checks, and later you are hearing about people on a no-fly list in able to buy guns. really, we need to look at decreasing gun violence in our country. the mass shootings and the voice that i bring. we talk a lot about mass shootings. individualslot of that die that we do not speak about. we're bringing that back to the forefront.

people die everyday from gun violence. and it could be homicide come a could be suicide, it could be an accident. host: give me your thoughts on the events of san bernardino. what does it bring to the discussion you are having on the task force about gun violence yes --? -- violence? well we are to stop people should not have guns. whether there are felons or the have a criminal background, or are connected to terrorist or have mental health issues. this is another mass shooting. i know they're still investigating, but how did they get the guns? we know the person who purchased the guns for them, why did you do tot? what can we lessen that? would have to cut off the access to guns. i'm not against guns. the nra tries to say that all

the time. i'm not anti-gun. i grew up in a family of police. my nephews are police in chicago. my cousin is a police officer in new york. i've hunters and my family. i'm not against guns. the head of the task force is a gun guy can't and i remember. host: do you own a gun? guest: i do not. as the is benson last week, there are procedures to make sure guns to not fall into the wrong hands. background checks and things like that. how can we expand them? becauset is interesting people talk about chicago like they have the strictest gun laws, chicago is just one place. it is all of the places around you do not have the same gun law, if they are not national or federal gun laws as far as gun trafficking and background checks. we had a hearing and gun shop owners talked about the gun show

how people will show and buy a gun. you do not know their history. host: for the most part again shows there are procedures in place -- guest: no, we're trying to expand background checks to close gun shows loopholes and online. host: you talked about the overlap of no-fly, comes up pertain to gun sales? guest: people on no-fly list of terrorist watchlist can come to the country and they could buy a gun. that is a big concern. they are on the no-fly list. they can still buy a gun. that makes no sense. host: why not a legislative changes to fix that? guest: there is resistance. like all of the gun reform safety bills that we put forth, the background checks, this check, there has been so much resistance from inside.

host: wisconsin state journal talked about -- speaker ryan talked about the no fly and he said that rogers misses the idea saying that the no-fly list includes people not convicted of terrorist act. ted kennedy said he was stopped in question at airports in 2004 because, according to kennedy come his name was on the list. crowd can putur anybody on a no-fly list with no proof. might be true, but a little inconvenience is not going to hurt anybody. if some of you heard, we would hear about that. it is to help protect americans. , butght be inconvenient that is how people felt but the tsa and taken off their shoes. it is better to be safe than sorry. host: our guest is

representative robin kelly from illinois. she is the vice chair of the gun violence prevention task force. if you want to ask her question you could is on the line. 202-748-8001 four republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8002 independents. our first call is from paulette a florida democrat. you are on with our guest. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. i'm just thinking, i know a lot of these mass shootings are done --people come from outside are not done by outsiders, it is mostly american-born. wasn't this man american-born? guest: yes. from san bernardino, born in cook county. caller: exactly. guns they're using to kill americans are made in america.

i keep listening to these things , people are raised to hate. they will grow up hating. hate is inside of them. that is all they know. this is what america is up against. .t is an american process host: thank you. your response? guest: i agree with her. we are not going to hate. we are taught that. that would help. if people, like the judging that is done by what donald trump is doing, that is horrible. it does not breed understanding or respect. host: from columbus, georgia.

this is carl on our independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a comment and the question. constantly hear about the gun violence that is a continual thing. nation is on the forefront of the leading nations. we have this violence because our policy and whatnot about the ability to get guns and have access to them. you know, i'm a veteran. do not get me wrong. i am not against gun ownership. i actually own several guns.

i believe it is the right of each and every one of us to be able to defend ourselves, if need be. this is embedded in our constitution. you know, we have problems now. we have serious problems. endust frustrates me to no to see that our nation cannot come together. we are completely divided. it is very sad. i wish that we could wake up as thation, and understand there are things that can be done. it is not so much as taking someone's rights to gun makingip away, versus the policy to get control of something that is out of control.

thank you. guest: thank you for your service. i agree with you, as i said, i am not against guns as long as there are law-abiding citizens that have been. i'm not against that, this is madness. where losing a generation of young people in the united states. our children are four times more likely than canadian children. 65 times more likely than british children to be killed. there is a problem here. it is a myriad of things. it is not just one thing. there are a lot of things. it will take a village to correct what is going on. host: jane in illinois. republican line. go ahead. caller: hello. i live in your district. my question is, why cannot we limit the availability of ammunition that these guns use? and, incidentally we need more

water in the river. let's not listen just to the fisherman. thank you. i'm happy to hear your mind constituent. we can do a lot of things. we just have a hard time getting agreement across the aisle as far as ammunition. as far as gun safety measures in general. i am looking out for the river. and in virginia, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am a hunter. was 15y first gun when i years old. i'm now 65 years old. i am in favor of gun ownership. i am not in favor of weapons that are designed to hold 30 rounds of ammunition. if we look at the killings that go on in this country, regardless of the hysteria that we talk about, these people being radicalized.

the commonality is that they are using weapons that carry 30 rounds of ammunition. i live in the state of virginia. in the state of virginia, 200 the shotgun designed to hold five rounds, you have to put a plug in it to limit the number of rounds that you can put in the shotgun. that is a state law. yet, will allow people to carry weapons and own weapons that carry 30 rounds of ammunition. if we limited the number of rounds of ammunition, if we created these assault weapons to be loaded, and set up with magazines to be loaded from the top like a hunting rifle with five runs of ammunition, you would not have the ability to walk into a building and md 30 rounds of ammunition into a crowd of people. you do not have to be a good shot when you're shooting 30 rounds of ammunition.

i think that we will never take the guns out of this country and i do not want to give up the weapons are used to hunt. but, i think we need to look at the guns that we have now this country. making them safer. really the people who own these guns to say the only people that we have them are criminals, they serve no purpose for some of you to go and shoot holes into a target at a shooting range. if you had a magazine that had five rounds, you could still shoot the same target. i think that we need to look at it from a different approach instead of saying we need to look at the background checks, we need to scare the people who own guns. they think they will take all the guns way. we need to limit what these guns are capable of doing. host: thank you. guest: i do agree with you particularly when you look at mass shootings or people who are

killed innocently because people are spraying bullets all over. actually, on the towns in illinois, not my district, not that far, they passed a law like that where lower magazine capacity and the supreme court, it went all the way to the supreme court. argumentsto hear the so that the law will stay in highland park. on the gune of us violence prevention task force, we are not trying to take guns away from people have legal guns and user guns to hunt or for legal reasons. host: changing magazine size and things like that, are those putting limits on the second amendment? guest: no. we have the right to bear arms, you can still bear your arms, do you need large capacity magazines to do that? you are certainly not hunting with that. host: we go to arizona.

don, good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. heard on rt this morning that starting in january you can said on your couch and order all the guns you want over the television. i want to know is that going to include handguns, this is the first time i have heard anything like that. you can buy a gun like you could a watch or a ring. what will that do to sales? we have over 300 million guns in private hands. thank you for taking my call. guest: i am not familiar with --t you just said as far as it sounds a qvc. i'm not familiar. host: there was legislation stemming from a previous gun shooting that dealt with guns and mental health. the mental health

issue. you can talk a little about that. you can talk about the larger discussion of the task force. guest: i think that mental health is a part of it. we have mental health issues with regards to suicide. in regards to more in the mass shooting. sometimes we tend just to blame mental health, we do not need to use that as an escape. sometimes her say it is all mental health, it is not just all mental health. it is definitely an aspect, depending on what speaking -- shooting you're talking about. like it gets too much of the blame. one thing i would like to see some of the neighborhoods that people living, particularly when they talk with the second amendment, parents i have talked to talk about the right to let their child playing a part. walked to a store or to school.

parents are scared to let their kids do that. what about that right? we have those children growing up where there is a lot of gun violence would be great if they had counselors they could speak to. also things like learning, mediation. our children have a peaceful environment they can grow peacefully. representative robin kelly. democrat from illinois. stephen from virginia. republican line. hello. i just looked at the nda active 2011. we look at that. for veterans concerns. we are having problems. we are being labeled agitators.

as far as the nda act is have more thanou a seven-day supply of food, you're considered a terrorist. is there this no-fly list. and the mental illness issues. , -- who will do the follow-up? puttingesponsible for names on a no-fly list? freedoms that are being taken away a we'll take you live to the capitol to hear the briefing with house speaker paul ryan. the speaker: hopefully this is the last one of these we'll do this year. hopefully. with that in mind i'd like to start by talking about my top

priority for 2016. last week at the library of congress i outlined my vision for a confident america. here at home and abroad. the current approach isn't getting us there. so we need to offer the country a real alternative in a form of a bold pro growth agenda. this morning i told our members at our conference this agenda will be our focus in the new year. i have asked each of our members to bring their ideas to the table so we can get started early next year. over the last six weeks i believe that we have made a very, very good down payment on this project. we have enacted the first long-term transportation bill in more than a decade. we have enacted the biggest reform of our education system in 25 years. driving power back to the states, school districts, and students. we have enacted a bipartisan defense bill that requires the president to put forward a real, comprehensive plan to defeat isis.

tomorrow we will pass a customs enforcement bill, this is a bill that i negotiated while being ways and means chair. it's the most comprehensive rewrite of our customs laws in a generation. this will help american workers and businesses compete on a level playing field. we have done all of this while opening up the process and returning to regular order. i talked about how conference committees have been an endangered species here in washington. well, with the customs conference report passing tomorrow, that will be the third conference report passing in congress in 10 days. let me put that in perspective. in the entire last congress, only three conference reports have become law in total. only three conference reports became law all last congress. we have done three conference reports in 10 days. so we are getting real concrete results. and we are getting the house of representatives back to functioning as the people's house. as we move forward, we need to raise our gaze. we need to aim higher than just

trying to meet deadlines. we need to treat this like the generational defining moment that it really is so that we can give the people of this country a real choice. that is what 2016 is going to be all about and i'm looking forward to it. with that i would be happy to answer your questions. >> mr. speaker, earlier this morning minority leader nancy pelosi and other democrats were laying perhaps a new demand in omnibus negotiations on the table to remove the current rider banning gun violence research. do you have any response to that? is that something republicans would consider? the speaker: i'm not going to negotiate current negotiations through the media. >> do you have any thoughts -- the speaker: i don't want to address -- we are in the middle of negotiating an enormous year-long omnibus appropriations. those negotiations are ongoing right now while we speak. the last thing i want to do is negotiate through the media. >> you addressed donald trump's

remarks over at the r.n.c., a couple days to digest t are you a leader of the republican party. you run for national office your sefment what's going on right now? the latest polls for what they are worth, 35% of republicans primary likely voters support donald trump, what's going on? the speaker: i'm not going to comment on that. i'm focused on making things work. i weighed in on a comment made in the presidential campaign because i think that needed to be commented on. i'm not going to spend every day here talking about the go betweens of what's happening. >> are you worried -- the speaker: look, you know what's going to get this place working well? you know what's going to say to the country, we put out an agenda to the american people in 2016. we show the people of this country here is a better way forward. here's a specific pro-growth agenda and you choose, mr. and mrs. america, you choose what kind of country you want to have. that is our obligation. we don't like the direction america is headed.

we think the country's headed in the wrong direction. most people agree with us. and so we have an obligation, we have a duty to pay that positive vision out for the country. that's what we are going to do in 2016. >> down the road a little bit, what happened when the plan was, i was told, a week ago, we are going to try to have the bill out over last weekend. that didn't happen. then we are going to have the house in session this weekend. that was pealed back in 24 hours. now we are looking at the middle of next week. walk us through what happened and why the delay. the speaker: we want to get it right. we don't want to rush legislation, especially big legislation like this omnibus appropriations. this is something i more or less inherited from the last regime. and i don't want to rush things through here. i want to get it right. we have always had the third week of december on our calendar as a week that we would potentially be in session. so we didn't want to come up against an arbitrary december 11 deadline and rush something. we are negotiating.

what we realize we didn't have to keep our members here on saturday and sunday while we continue to negotiate. >> what was that trip wire? the speaker: only i wasn't going to let december 11 be an arbitrary deadline to rush legislation. we want to get it right. >> it seems every one of these big spending bills, about 80 members of your conference, there is a sizable vote no vote. representative tom cole said those folks hurt your negotiating position because nancy pelosi can sit across the table and say you can only provide 80 votes, do you feel that way? the speaker: i don't want to comment on negotiating strategies or what it is we are doing or how our votes are going. i think our members understand the situation quite well. look, we are not going to get everything we are going to want in negotiations. to democrats aren't going get everything they want. but i believe we'll successfully complete the negotiations. >> mr. scalise did send out that

memo saying get onboard. the speaker: i don't want to comment on the internal deliberations of our conference. not everybody gets what they want when you negotiate in divided government. i think we'll complete this. yes. >> there seems to be an air of nonchalance congress is missing the december 11 deadline. the speaker: it's like that a lot here. nonchalant. it's getting it right. this is $1 trillion we are dealing with. this is hardworking taxpayers work hard to send us their tax dollars. we have to respect that. so that's why we have to make sure that how we spend the hardworking taxpayer dollars are done in a way where we are scrutinizing every dollar. we are not going to rush itment we are going to get it right. so the deadlines -- look, deadlines come and go. we want to make sure that we get it right. that is why we are trying to get these deliberations and negotiations going the right way without having some artificial deadline to get us. >> as far as 2016, as you started your comment, the tax overhaul, would that be number one? do you intend to move bills or put another bill on the table

like dave camp? the speaker: this is something we are going to be deliberating in our reteeth and thereafter. i am not going to be the speaker of the house dictating exactly how we assemble our agenda and what's in the agenda. what i am doing is creating a format, a structure for our members to come together and participate in how to build a pro-growth agenda and lay it out for the country. that is a decision we are going to make jointly as a conference. it's one of the things i'm trying to do in this position is not hold power, but centralize it so all members of our conference, all members of congress have an ability to participate in this situation, in this agenda. that's why i'm not going to answer questions i don't have answers to because i'm not going to be the only one making these decisions. i want my colleagues joining me. >> do you anticipate to finish by wednesday? the speaker: i'm not going to put a deadline on t i don't think it would be right to say what date we are going to be done by because i want to make

sure these negotiations are done well and done right and not by some arbitrary deadline. >> could you give some sense about where things are generally speaking? the speaker: we are trading offers. we are talking to each other. we are doing all the things you would do, the appropriators and the leaders, so that we can get an agreement. >> billions of dollars of tax extenders hanging around. can you give us insight into how that happens? the speaker: tax extenders and omnibus are both simultaneous. we posted a bill. that bill is our base case bill. we'll pass that bill if we cannot get an agreement on a bigger package. >> mr. speaker, the san bernardino briefing today, what questions do you go in with and what do you hope to hear? the speaker: i received a briefing at the beginning of the week. i asked most of my questions on the f.b.i. and other intelligence officials. what i wanted to do is give all members of congress access to the same briefers i received so they can get answers to their questions. how is r 2016 agenda,

the presidential candidates, the two independent avenues, but obviously this program you want to come up with is pretty substantial. the speaker: we have given thought to that. i have been on a ticket. i'm familiar with how this works. i don't think that we have the time to wait until a nominee arrives, which could be as late as, i don't know, june or july. to then come up with an agenda to show the country who we are and what we believe in. we don't like the path america is on. think we are on the wrong track. we have an obligation to show a bert way forward. and we have something -- better way forward. and we have something to say about that. i think we are going to do this earlier because i think it's wrong to wait that long. i don't think we have the luxury of waiting. what i learned in presidential campaigns is you have to start talking about these issues early

and often so that people understand what kind of choice they are truly being given. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the "l.a. times." i wanted to ask something you said earlier in the week you would go ahead and support the republican nominee, whoever that is. can you talk about the importance of that, why you believe it's important -- the speaker: you may not know this. as speaker of the house, i'm the chairman of the republican national convention. i chair the convention. so i'm going to be neutral, a, in presidential election in the nominating process because i'm the chair of the convention. so i'm not going to say who i'm for or against. i'm going to support the nominee. wouldn't that be weird if the chair of the convention isn't supporting the actual nominee? so because i am -- i have a special role as chair of the republican convention, i stay neutral and support the nominee. and all the while i will stand up for what i believe. i will stand up for what i believe is right and i will stand up for our party's principles and nation's principles. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> lots of questions about federal spending. rules committee today will take up the short-term measure in addition to the tax extenders package. the house itself returns in about 15 minutes. at noon eastern. short speeches at that time. they'll be back around 2:30, we expect, taking up seven suspension bills. one of those will be the coast guard authorization. the two-year authorization. and as you're hearing the federal spending will be taken up on friday, a short-term measure likely that will fund the federal government through mid next week. follow live house coverage here on c-span when they come back in. until they do, part of today's "washington journal." " continues. now isoining us representative thomas massie, republican of kentucky. he is a member of the government oversight reform committee. good morning. congressman, give your sense of the debate going on overspending.

bill?e see a finalized are you going to be happy with the final result, do you think? guest: i will not be happy with the final result, i can tell you that. the process is broken, and what we are doing right now is sort of clearing out the debris so that we can start the right process next year. this is an appropriations process that we are talking about. the way congress is supposed to fund government is through 12 separate bills. we were never supposed to write one giant, 1600-page bill in the last two days of the session and path that for her we are supposed to do is have 12 separate ones. for instance, we should vote on military spending separately from the department of the interior. what you do is you have the senate do the same thing. you have congress and 12 separate spending bills to the .president what that enables you to do is have that debate separately on things and set of it becoming best giant hairball at the

beginning of the year, which is what we have now. to paul ryan has promised get us back to that process, which inside the beltway is called regular order. i think it would be very helpful to do that, to separate these debates on various parts of government because what happens right now is if the democrats and republicans grind down, grind, you know, to a stop over one issue, it imperils all of government your it all parts of the government are at risk of not being funded. if we would separate like we're , in the 1970's, congress passed a law that basically sets how we passed the budget, if we would follow that law and follow the budget that way, we would not have the massive shutdowns throughout the end of the year. one of those republicans call for using the spending bill to take up issues like funding planned parenthood or syrian refugees. were you one who advocated for

that position? if we had 12 separate bills, we could do that. for instance, let me to you what is happened historically. there is a battle in congress between the administration and congress over the epa using the authority that they claim to have, that was given to them by congress many decades ago, rewriting the definition of what is a water of the u.s. what is a federal waterway. it even includes underground water now. and most republicans disagree with this redrafting of waters in the u.s. in that appropriations bill that -- when that appropriations bill that funds the epa comes out, we can say none of the funds here redefine waters of the u.s. and we can have that battle on the epa funding bill without

impairing our soldiers' paychecks or the processing of claims at the v.a. or whether the national parks or monuments are open or not. so when we try to put these writers on a huge bill, you imperil basically all of government. now, what i would say, if i put my partisan hat on, if you allow me to do that, calling in on the republican line, if you will, is that the president takes the government hostage when he, for instance, the monuments here. they will close down over a and webout the epa, allow him to do that because we are doing a giant omnibus bill. so what congress has done by doing one a giant bill instead of 12 separate bills as we have given up our power of the purse because we are always going to lose that argument in the press. when the president comes out on the stage and says, "well,

pollute ourwant to planet, they are shutting down the government to do it," he blames us for that. if we can have that debate on just the epa bill without including the v.a. and military spending at the same time like we're supposed to do, then that is kind of like letting the hostages out of the room. ok, republicans and democrats agree with need a military. we actually can get to some agreement on what the spending level should be. let that hostage out of the room, if you will. same thing with the v.a., same thing with the parks, and have this separate argument on a separate bill. again, this is not a hypothetical -- this is the way things were done for decades until the late 1990's, early 2000's, we started to grind to a halt. host: our guest is with us, if you want to ask them questions, the lines are on the screen. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

.emocrats, (202) 748-8000 independents, (202) 748-8002. representative thomas massie, republican of kentucky. in the spirit of your last statement, a letter was sent about the spending bill, and this was about the issue of planned parenthood, saying in the meantime, please know that we cannot support any funding resolution -- an appropriations bill, and omnibus package, a continuing resolution, or otherwise -- that contains any funding for planned parenthood, including mandatory funding. guest: i still agree with that approach, but the right place to nd planned parenthood is in the spending bill. some people say, oh, that is not germane. it is germane. at least the discretionary part

of planned parenthood should be left out of the omnibus bill. but what i am saying is we lose that argument in the public if the president is willing to shut down the monuments. we lose the argument in the because we do not have the budget out in separate line items so that the fight over planned parenthood would be on the health and human services appropriations bill, not on the omnibus. now, am i still willing to have that discussion and try to defund planned parenthood on the giant bill that funds? everything? absolutely. i would knowledge here, it is battle in theat public when the president puts barricades across the monuments. host: do you think speaker ryan is heading toward that, do you think he is having strides in that return? guest: i think he absolutely is. as i said, there are 12 separate appropriations bills.

we got six of them done in the house last summer, and then we basically gave up and blamed the amendment on the confederate offered. the democrats our leadership said we are not going to vote on that, so we will just up passing the -- just stop passing the appropriations bill, which was ridiculous. the senate had either one or none of the 12 appropriations bills. what we need to do this year, and i hope listeners follow this, and i would love to combat on your show as we get into this process next year -- we need to pass all 12 appropriations bills and send those to the senate and say, "no more omnibus, no more cr, this is what we are doing. you have 12 appropriations bills. whenback and talk to us you have 12 appropriations bills to your will conference those and pass them to the president turko i think speaker ryan did try -- conference those, and

pass them to the president." i think speaker ryan did try. it takes 60 to do anything in the senate. if they become the obstructionists, are we willing dotake the public heat and the educational campaign of explaining there are supposed to be 12 separate bills, and the senate is not doing their job? that is where we need to take the stand, and that will have to happen before next the delivery of. host: we have calls lined up for you. chuck --s from the first is from chuck. go ahead. caller: good morning. want us all, you people to trust you, but when you go out here and look at how the senate voted, loretta lynch, holder was basically a disaster you people cross lines, you could have blocked her, she becomes the continuation. we cannot trust you people.

instead of you guys voted for common sense, you guys make deals. this is quite obvious. nine republicans voted to as her loretta lynch office. your not yet to be trusted. guest: that is a great point. i do not think you should trust washington. they do not deserve your trust. and, i came here because i do not trust them. that lorettaout lynch is confirmed by the senate, we do not have confirmation in the house. the difference between house and senate is they have power of confirming cabinet appointments. they can approve or disapprove the treaties. we have big power. we have the power to set taxes. all billstution says raising revenue shall originate in the house.

are the two differences between the house and senate. i did not even vote on the loretta lynch nomination. i did cosponsor a resolution. and that is the power that we have in the house. the power ofe appointment in the senate, i do not think you should trust washington dc -- washington, d.c. if you do need verification. one of the problems that we have had is that people do not like congress. we had a 10% approval rating, but they keep sending the same congressmen back. i think that is because they do not look at their own voting record and see how abysmal it is. do not trust us. i do not know we are congressmen is, i do not want to implicate them, if they are not doing their job, send them back.

host: democrat, senate tenure texas. go ahead. caller: it is funny, people do not trust congress when republicans are in charge. they trusted congress when democrats were in control. i know you guys will muddy the waters and send people not trust congress, it is simply because you guys are not doing your job. that means republicans are not doing their job. willthe reason why people blame the republicans and not notpresident when -- it is because he puts barriers around it is becauses, you guys play these games. we are not stupid. d -- you areng planned parenthood, obamacare and the epa. his republicans that are playing games. we are not stupid. caller: i do agree that the american public is not stupid. guest: i do agree that congress

tends to play games. i think you are misplacing the blame on the republican party. it is certainly within our ability and our prerogative in the constitution whether to fund something or not to fund it. epa, if they the pass a new role that has never come for a vote in congress, it is certainly our prerogative to defund it. that part of it is not a game. complaints is that there is a lot of theater going on in congress. there is a lot of theater that happens in the oversight committee. we invite witnesses in. we ask them questions. virtually nothing comes from the hearing. i am cynical as well as about the aspect of congress. i would like to see something

come out of those hearings instead of just the theatrical aspect. we had in the irs, we had lois times, for me to you both that she took the vote come i turned my colleagues and they say we are dragging all these people in here. they are blaming them for abusing the tax code. who wrote the tax code? congress did. it is 70,000 pages. we need to scrap it and start over. all the stuff that happened at the irs would not have happened. host: republican, oregon. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. >> "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch this and all of today's program at c-span.org. the u.s. house is gaveling in momentarily. they'll take up seven bills today including one on coast guard authorization.

two year bill and bill that would require better coordination with the national cybersecurity and communications integration center with states. first speeches, 2:30 or so legislative work. now live to the house floor here on c-span. pro tempore: house will be in order. prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the two parties negotiate the funding of government in these wanning days of the first session, grant them wisdom and spirit of cooperation in ongoing negotiations. continued to bless our nation with the sense of peace and healing as the victims of san bernandino are being laid to rest. during this holy season, continue to be with us. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and

glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house its approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 rule 1, the stands approved. he pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. admiral stavridis: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. admiral stavridis: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, it is sad to me that it took the president five days to identify the attack in san bernardino as terrorism. after i heard the tragic news last wednesday, i knew in five seconds it was a terrorist

attack. the president needs to revisit the 9/11 memorial in new york city which clearly establishes the guideline and timeline of the global war on terrorism. he can see copies of fatwas by islamic extremists, declaring war on modern civilization dated in 1996. the war has never stopped. the second amendment's right to bear arms has never been more important for citizens to protect their families. the thought that gun control can stop terrorism is a diversion from the real threats. this was revealed by the mass murders in paris despite french strict gun control. in the past weeks, the terrorist mass murders have been horrifying of lebanese, russians, and french, along with americans in iraq, israel, paris and san bernardino of muslims, christians, and jues, the president should change course for isil not political lectures. we are facing an enemy that requires us to setaside

partisanship to protect american families. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. admiral stavridis: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. admiral stavridis: without objection. mr. higin: mr. speaker, noticeably absence from the tax exextenders bill this week is a provision on which american jobs depend. a 30% credit for the installation of solar on residential and commercial properties was implemented in 2006. the result has been annual growth of 73%. that growth allowed the industry to develop panels that have sored in efficient -- soared in efficiency and plummeted in price. solar is our fastest growing energy source, responsible for all new generating capacity brought on line this year. employment is growing at a rate 20 times higher than the overall economy. if the solar investment tax credit is not extended, that growth will stop. demand will drop by 71%. and 100,000 jobs will be lost. but a five-year extension would

create 60,000 jobs and allow the industry to come to maturity. mr. speaker, tax legislation does not include the solar investment tax credit. it is not serious about creating american jobs. i urge its inclusion. i yield back the balance of my time. admiral stavridis: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my rae marks. admiral stavridis: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor and celebrate the life of a patriot and dear friend, mary caldwell plumber, know as mayor. mayor accomplished so much throughout her long and rewarding life and did it with a constant smile and positive outlook. we treasure the moments we had with her because we knew we could not have her forever. as per her wish, will i not stand by her grave and cry, but adhere to the standards she established and always maintained of loving life and each other. her friends, family, and loved ones,er admired her and we were blessed to have known her. mayor is now reunited with her

husband of 45 years, dick, and two of her children, penny and christopher. though heaven has gained her, we have not lost her. and we will never lose her for she is rooted in our hearts and in our memories. now and forever. mayor is survived by her daughter and son-in-law, her son, richard, and her three loving grandchildren, penny, bonnie, and willis flick. may god bless and keep mary caldwell plumber in his bosom. hank you, mr. speaker. mr. yarmuth: i rise today for the explosive terrorist act which would prevent individuals on the terrorist watch lies from buying weapons in the u.s. this legislation has been blocked from coming to the floor for a vote nearly a dozen times over the past two weeks. most americans find it mind-boggling that we ten to

allow individuals deemed too dangerous to fly to buy weapons in the u.s., guns designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. i urge my republican colleagues to fix this loophole and protect our citizens. to find some courage and put the safety of the american people before the politics of the gun lobby. if republicans truly have concerns over how the terrorists watch list is constructed, then they should offer an amendment to fix it. but more than 2,000 suspects on the terrorist watch list have already bought guns in our country. we don't need to add to that list. we need to act right now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckin: -ily: i rise today to wreck -- mr. mckinley: i rise today to recognize three football state champion, all of which from the first district of west virginia. the head coach and the indians of bridge port high school on

their third straight class double-a championship title. for magnolia high school, coach josh simms and the blue eagles on their single-a championship. and for the first time in school distry, chris and the wheeling park patriots on their class triple-a championship. mr. speaker, i'm told by my astute research staff that except for states with one representative, this is the first time in american history that all three high school champions have come in a single district from -- from one district. in a single year from one district. i challenge my eseemed challenge, mr. jenkins and mr. mooney from the other districts of west virginia to match that title next year. i yield back the balance of my ime.

ms. sanchez: i rise today to commemorate international human rights day. this year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the international convenant on civil and political rights and the international could have vent on economic, social, and cultural rights. the united states of america was founded upon freedom, democracy, and liberty. and america must do its role as an advocate and as a defender of these values. today more than 140 prisoners of conscience are currently imprisoned in vietnam due to their political view and activities. these ackive vis are constant and physical harassments and oftentimes forced to endure unsanitary prison conditions, activists including tran tuck, ng, and ho duck were falsely tried and imprisoned simply for

practicing the right to assemble. this year in november, burma, a country known for its horrendous human rights records, held its first free election. yet vietnam continues to function as a single party system. today on international human rights day, i urge vietnam to finally open up its society and to empower its people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to pay tribute to the life of thomas gallagher, an honorable public servant who passed away earlier this week. following his service in the united states air force during the korean war, thomas earned an undergraduate and master's degree while simultaneously pursuing his career in law enforcement and raising a family. thomas joined the new york city police department in 1957 and went on to serve the city for 37

years, rising all the way to the rank of assistant chief. thomas was the sign of irish immigrants. from a very early age he learned the importance of hard work and selfless dedication to his family and the community. though he endured many tragedies in his life, including the loss of all three of his wives to various diseases, never lost his zeal for life. he was buoyed by the great pride he held for his children who rose to become great successes in law, business, and the secret service. thomas personifies the great american spirit. not only did he persevere through trying times, he prospered. his was a life well lived. and i feel truly blessed to have known him and his great family. mr. katko: may god hold thom mass in the palm of his hand. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. miss cusser: today i rise to recognize the life of a truly

extraordinary granite stayeder, professor john, who passed away last week in new hampshire at the age of 90. professor was a lifelong granite stater a. world war ii veteran, and an internationally remound language professor at my alma mater, dartmouth college. he developed the method, a ref lutionary way of teaching languages that includes rapid fire drills and dramatic flare, allowing students to be immersed in the language and culture. he was an extraordinary mentor. his teaching style has been widely adopted at universities and institutions around the world. including in the peace corps where he was the first director of language programs in 1964. his legacy extends far beyond simply teaching language. his deep commitment to cultural die long and understanding shaped the perspective of countless students and inspired them to make the world a better

place. he will be truly missed by the entire granite state and members of the dartmouth community throughout the worrell. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield whack back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection. mr. petersen: mr. speaker, the pinky swear promise is a universal symbol to keep one's promise and word. for the pinky swear foundation, keeping that promise means helping children who are battling cancer and their families of the the foundation's work was started 12 years ago after 9-year-old mitch of minnesota had been diagnosed with terminal bone cancer. while in his hospital room, overheard others discussing there would not be enough money for christmas that year. mitch decided would he give away all of his money to those families so they could celebrate the holidays, and he made his father, pinky swear, to continue to make sure they will help children with cancer after he was gone. today the family has been joined

by others in the community and around the country who have agreed to help keep this promise and help in the fight against cancer. the pinky swear foundation has raised millions of dollars for different events for this cause. tomorrow is pinky swear day and great time to recognize the wonderful work of this foundation. mitch's grave bravery, selflessness, and heart continue to live on to help others. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, for 35 years maui family support service has n been helping to build strong healthy families on maui, mole ky. last year alone the organization assisted more than 5,000 people in need which included making visits, helping 136 people access mental health, substance abuse or domestic violence services, and providing developmental screenings for 953 children children.

additionally, thousands of people have gone through the organization's programs for earl will i childhood development, teen substance abuse spreengs, and fatherhood involvement helping to build and strengthen local families and communities. one in eight children in hawaii live in poverty and its organizations like the maui family support services that play a critical role in making sure that our local families get the support and services they need. i want to say thank you to this great organization for the service that they have provided for over 35 years. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, you may know and others may know and may have heard about the wildfires that swept through central washington this past summer destroying many homes, lives, wild stock, and livestock across washington state. tragically they also took the lives of three brave

firefighters. on august 19, 25-year-old daniellyon, who was also a firefighter, with his friends and partners, richard wheeler, andrew, and tom when their vehicle was overcome by flames. daniel made it out of the fire truck alive but suffered burns over 60% of his body. a few weeks ago i had the opportunity to meet with daniel and after he had spent three months undergoing treatment at harvard medical center in seattle, he has a positive attitude about life and is excited about his opportunity to continue to serve. this young man still wants to be a police officer. . pe lost his fingertips in this fire. i want to be there for him so he can accomplish his goal of continuing to serve as a police

officer in the state of washington. as a former cop of 33 years, i could not be more proud of daniel. he's a real life hero and will always remember his friends and partner. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> address the house for one extend.revise and the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. assad was on the no-fly list. if he had decided to walk into a gun store that day, he would have walked out with a gun in hand. ms. speier: his bomb failed to go off. but had he instead purchased a military-style weapon that day, it could have been very different. it is absolutely against common sense that suspected terrorists

can walk into a gun store and purchase any firearm that they would like. they can't walk on to a plane, ind you, but they can purchase a military-style assault weapon and wreak havoc on a community. 77% of the american people believe we should close this loophole. the republicans have an option, a bill by their republican colleague, mr. king, would close that loophole. i ask my colleagues on the republican side listen to mr. king and the american people and not to the n.r.a. and gun manufacturers. we have had enough moments of silence. for once let's have a moment of action. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bilirakis: i rise today to discuss important legislation that will help keep our country safe.

in light of recent tragedies across the globe, our national security has been at the forefront of our minds. as elected officials, we have a responsibility to everything we can do to protect our nation. hat is why i re-flusted h.r. 4089, the student visa security improvement act to further address potential threats to our national security. it is clear there are significant gaps and vulnerabilities that must be addressed in our student advice ave -- visa program. this would provide mechanisms in place to ensure students are in this country for their intended purpose rather than to do us harm. my legislation will safeguard our universities, communities and our nation. i urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, yesterday, the house passed bipartisan legislation to better protect our nation by making our visa waiver program more rigorous. we recognize on a bipartisan basis that legal loopholes that make americans less safe must be closed. why can't we bring that same spirit to commonsense gun violence legislation? that's a rhetorical legislation because the gun industries and their puppet, n.r.a. have a strange willhold on this republican congress. but that silence will no longer be tolerated. more than 2,000 suspects have legally purchased guns. and one brave republican has dared to confront the gun lobby by introducing a bill to close this loophole.

i demand a vote on that bill. americans are tired of hearing thoughts and prayers. they are sick of our regularly scheduled moments of silence. our silence has become the problem. americans want action to address the gun violence epidemic in this country and no better place to start than the bipartisan bill prohibiting suspected terrorists on the terrorist watch list from stockpiling assault weapons. let's have a vote on h.r. 1076. time to end congress' shameful silence on this critical national security issue. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. coffman: i rise today to recognize the valor christian high school football team. on saturday night, the eagles rallied to a 29-26 victory over pa mona top capture the sixth

title in seven seasons. the achievement is a testament to their character antennasity. the players stood strong in their victory in the final minutes and is a credit to the determination and commitment of the entire team. and the coach ward sherman. it's an honor to highlight the accomplishments of these young men who finished the season 12-2 and impressive 30-1 playoff record. i recognize the championship game m.v.p., junior quarterback, dylan mccalfry, who led the team on two touchdown drives in the final minutes to win the comeback victory. congratulations to the valor christian high school team on their impressive season. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> permission to ause the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to stop the silence and to encourage and stress that my colleagues need to take actions to expand background checks and close loopholes. i will continue to stand here and fight and i will not be silent while many of my colleagues have spoken about the loopholes that allows terrorist suspects to purchase guns. we have many other loopholes that present a danger to the safety of our homeland of america since the enactment of the brady act of 1994, the law has stopped nearly 2.5 million guns from being transferred to individuals legally disqualified. despite the success of this law, it does not apply to 40% of all

the gun purchases. 92%, mr. speaker, 92% of americans favor universal background checks. it's well past time for us as congress to reflect the will of the people that we represent and to pass legislation to expand background checks and close the loophole. stop the silence. we must do what the people sent us here to do and that is to take action. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. mr. pitts: i rise in honor of human rights day. the u.n. general assembly declared the universal declaration of human rights. it set out a common understanding of the fundamental human rights that were to be unveers sale protected. today we recall the rights intrinsic to every human being.

people continue to struggle to attain the most basic rights and respect for their basic human dignity. in several regions of the world, defenseless civilians face attacks by terrorist organizations, networks that seek to intimidate, maim and kill in the name of a distorted theology. i join mr. mcgovern and people everywhere in reaffirming our rights and freedoms contained in the universal declaration and urge leaders to promote and guarantee them. i thank the human rights defenders everywhere who so often carry out their work at great risk to themselves and their families and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? mrs. beatty: permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. beatty: i come today to speak about weapons of murder

and terror. mr. speaker, suspected terrorists should not be able to walk into a gun store and come out with weapons of murder and terror. as members of congress, we have an obligation to keep american families safe. to not bring the bipartisan bill h.r. 1076 to the floor for a vote is to deny us the opportunity to keep our families safer. this bill, h.r. 1076, is sensible, straightforward and if you are a suspected terrorists -- terrorist, you should not be able to buy a gun. if you are a suspected terrorist , you should not, mr. speaker, be able to buy a gun. i will say it today and tomorrow

and repeatedly. if you are a suspected terrorist , you should not be able to buy a gun. we should not have guns and weapons of murder and terror. i will no longer be silent. mr. speaker, we should no longer be silent. lets transcend partisan politics and uphold our promise to keep americans safe. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: permission to address the house for one minute. i recognize mr. shannon johnson. on december 2, our country witnessed the worst terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11. on this day in san bernandino, california, 14 people were tragically killed. mr. shannon johnson was one of

the people whose life was cut short that day. his friends and family say he enjoyed laughter, conversation and music. he believed in the greatness of equality, kindness and love. on december 2, mr. johnson, who was a native of georgia in the 1st congressional district he displayed shielding fellow co-workers from a hail of bullets. his last words were, i got you. i got you. mr. johnson died a hero. my thoughts and prayers go out to his friends and family. i hope we may all recognize and never forget the act of sacrifice that mr. johnson and others have made to protect the ones we love. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i would like to express my profound appreciation to you for your recent acknowledgement that ou expect the james adruga authorization act to be part of the omnibus bill. thank you leader pelosi for your leadership in support of this important lifesaving legislation. i'm grateful to every single democratic member of this congress, all of whom are co-sponsors of this important legislation and the many republicans who are sponsors of this bill. all of you have helped us to live up to our commitment. we will never forget. heroic first responders and survivors of 9/11, men and women from all 50 states and nearly every congressional district will now be able to breathe a

little easier and will certainly have a much happier holiday season when this bill is finally across the finish line. this is how congress can and should work. in a bipartisan way, doing the right thing more often. happy holidays and happy new year. now when do we vote on this important lifesaving legislation? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i rise today to introduce a resolution calling for re-establishing full diplomatic relations between the united states and the nation of belarus with a focus of exchanging ambassadors between our countries. this resolution recognizes that the government of belarus has improved conditions in their own

country. the organization of security and cooperation in europe monitored the recent presidential election in belarus and noted the progress made in establishing a more open system. another example of its positive action, it played a significant role in bringing about a ceasefire in ukraine. minsk,this by hosting in diplomatic talks to all parties in the conflict. this was a major contribution of restoring peace. furthermore on october 22 of this year, belarus released of its very few political prisoners. in response to the european union and the united states have temporarily lifted economic sanctions. hopefully that temporary suspension of economic sanctions will become permanent as belarus continues to improve its standing. exchanging ambassadors is a major step forward in the right direction and i ask my

colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, which i will submit to the congress right now. . ms. lee: mr. speaker, i rise today because passing commonsense gun legislation should not be a partisan issue. what our country needs is commonsense gun reform, but many in this chamber won't even take the first step to take guns out of the hands of terrorists. time and time again republicans have voted to block debate. let me say that again. a debate. they won't even let us discuss congressman peter king's denying firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists act. otherwise known as h.r. 1076. that's simply outrageous. we should debate, yes. and we should vote up or down on this important bill. this bill, which i'm proud to

co-sponsor, would close the dangerous loophole that allows individuals on the government's no-fly list to legally purchase guns. let me emphasize this. these are people who are deemed too dangerous to fly on planes. but they can and do purchase guns. if they are too dangerous for an airplane, why aren't they too dangerous to have a weapon that fires 800 rounds per minute? my democratic colleagues and i remain committed to blocking dangerous individuals from buying guns and stopping the senseless violence that has already taken too many lives in this country. it's past time to listen to the american people and not the n.r.a.. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. just a few minutes ago i returned from the white house where president barack obama sign historic reforms through elementary and secondary education into law. i was proud to serve on the

conference committee responsible for settling the differences between the house and senate versions of the every student succeeds act, which will replace or has replaced no child left behind. this is legislation which is years in the making and which will finally put control of education back into the hands of our states, schools, and of course parents and teachers across the nation. there's also calls for the u.s. department of education to study how title one funds are distributed. i have long been concerned that children are put at a disadvantage based on the population of their school district rather than the concentration of poverty. i'm hopeful that this study will make the argument for a more equitable method to distribute these funds to areas which are deeply affected by poverty. this is a bill that i believe will make a real difference for students across the nation. i was proud to see it again to gain overwhelming bipartisan support in both the house and senate. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, we were leekted to protect and serve the american people against all enemies foreign and domestic. mr. jefferies: one of the best ways we can uphold this sacred duty is to deal with the gun violence epidemic that we have in america that claims the lives of more than 11,000 people each year. one of the things that we should be doing is passing legislation to prevent individuals who are on the f.b.i.'s watch list because they are suspected terrorists from being able to purchase guns. this seems to me to be a no-brainer. if you are not able to fly because you are a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to purchase an ak-47, an ar-15, or another weapon of mass destruction which are not used

to hunt deer. they are used to hunt human beings. so it's time for house republicans to stop functioning as wholly own subsidiaries of the n.r.a. it's time to cut the puppet strings from the gun lobby and it's time to do the best of the american people and pass sensible gun violence prevention legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i too, today applaud the enactment of the every student succeed act. this legislation passed by the house and senate with overwhelming bipartisan support was signed into law today by the president. mr. carter: education is not a partisan issue. in a time of political gridlock, i am proud to see both parties

and both bodies come together to improve our education system. mr. allen: the every student succeed act repeals the no child left behind, gets rid of 49 wasteful and ineffective programs, and eliminates the secretary of education's coercion of states into adopting common core standards. most importantly this legislation gets washington out of our local classrooms and restores control back to the school districts, teachers, and parents. these are the folks who know what our children need to succeed. not bureaucrats thousands of miles away. as the son of two educators i know the future of georgia's 12th district education system belongs in georgia not in washington. as a member of the house education and work force committee, i am proud to see the every student succeed act as the law of the land. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition?

mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. given ng: mr. speaker, the challenge we are faced today with economics, economy, labor force i have watched since december 2 so much dishonesty on this floor concerning december 2 actions and the ability for terrorists to purchase weapons automatically. the f.b.i. director told the senate judiciary committee that every time someone buys a weapon it's run through the f.b.i. they are notified if they are on the no-fly list. i'm a little concerned on the other side of the aisle keep talking about we have to protect our public when in turn they are taking away the constitution of our nation. if they are sent this information, they are reviewed. if the terrorists were actually buying weapons and walking the

streets, they should be arrested. and they have not. you can get on the fly list. i personally myself have been on the fly list. took me six months to get off of it. they didn't tell me who put me on it. why i was put on it. and what was the result from. six months. yes, i am an n.r.a. board member. but to have people say that terrorists are running around buying guns is outright lie. i'll say that on the floor. it is not true. and it is part of the constitution we should uphold the constitution we swear in office, i swear to uphold the constitution. those that are talking about what they are doing is against the constitution and will i fight until my dying breath to make sure we have the ability to retain the second amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker. house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house

of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 10, 2015, at 9:15 a.m. that the senate passed with an amendment h.r. 2820. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1rk the chair declares the house host: >> washington journal

continues. joining us now is representative robin kelly from illinois. she serves a second district. she is on the chair of the gun violence prevention task force. guest: good morning. host: could you tell our viewers a little bit about yourself and your background? what is the main goal of your work echoed -- work echoed i replaced jesse jackson junior. i'm from the second conditional district. my district is reversed -- diverse geographically.

actually, people initially said that the gentleman from chicago, but i'm not from chicago two thirds of my district is a suburban and rural. the other third is the city of chicago. and my background, i have a lot of government. i worked on the local level, or live now, the state level, the county level the chief of staff. illinois state treasurer, chief administrative officer. i'm the the present of cook county. also worth been for four years. host: as far as the task force you have been designed to set up, what is the goal? guest: i am not the only vice chair, but there are a number of us, really, the goal is gun violence prevention, there are some definite things we're trying to accomplish like background checks, and later you are hearing about people on a no-fly list in able to buy guns.

really, we need to look at decreasing gun violence in our country. the mass shootings and the voice that i bring. we talk a lot about mass shootings. individualslot of that die that we do not speak about. we're bringing that back to the forefront. people die everyday from gun violence. and it could be homicide come a could be suicide, it could be an accident. host: give me your thoughts on the events of san bernardino. what does it bring to the discussion you are having on the task force about gun violence yes --? -- violence? well we are to stop people should not have guns. whether there are felons or the have a criminal background, or are connected to terrorist or have mental health issues. this is another mass shooting. i know they're still investigating, but how did they get the guns? we know the person who purchased the guns for them, why did you

do tot? what can we lessen that? would have to cut off the access to guns. i'm not against guns. the nra tries to say that all the time. i'm not anti-gun. i grew up in a family of police. my nephews are police in chicago. my cousin is a police officer in new york. i've hunters and my family. i'm not against guns. the head of the task force is a gun guy can't and i remember. host: do you own a gun? guest: i do not. as the is benson last week, there are procedures to make sure guns to not fall into the wrong hands. background checks and things like that. how can we expand them? becauset is interesting people talk about chicago like they have the strictest gun laws, chicago is just one place.

it is all of the places around you do not have the same gun law, if they are not national or federal gun laws as far as gun trafficking and background checks. we had a hearing and gun shop owners talked about the gun show how people will show and buy a gun. you do not know their history. host: for the most part again shows there are procedures in place -- guest: no, we're trying to expand background checks to close gun shows loopholes and online. host: you talked about the overlap of no-fly, comes up pertain to gun sales? guest: people on no-fly list of terrorist watchlist can come to the country and they could buy a gun. that is a big concern. they are on the no-fly list. they can still buy a gun. that makes no sense.

host: why not a legislative changes to fix that? guest: there is resistance. like all of the gun reform safety bills that we put forth, the background checks, this check, there has been so much resistance from inside. host: wisconsin state journal talked about -- speaker ryan talked about the no fly and he said that rogers misses the idea saying that the no-fly list includes people not convicted of terrorist act. ted kennedy said he was stopped in question at airports in 2004 because, according to kennedy come his name was on the list. crowd can putur anybody on a no-fly list with no proof. might be true, but a little inconvenience is not going to hurt anybody. if some of you heard, we would

hear about that. it is to help protect americans. , butght be inconvenient that is how people felt but the tsa and taken off their shoes. it is better to be safe than sorry. host: our guest is representative robin kelly from illinois. she is the vice chair of the gun violence prevention task force. if you want to ask her question you could is on the line. 202-748-8001 four republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8002 independents. our first call is from paulette a florida democrat. you are on with our guest. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. i'm just thinking, i know a lot of these mass shootings are done --people come from outside are not done by outsiders, it is

mostly american-born. wasn't this man american-born? guest: yes. from san bernardino, born in cook county. caller: exactly. guns they're using to kill americans are made in america. i keep listening to these things , people are raised to hate. they will grow up hating. hate is inside of them. that is all they know. this is what america is up against. .t is an american process host: thank you. your response? guest: i agree with her. we are not going to hate. we are taught that. that would help.

if people, like the judging that is done by what donald trump is doing, that is horrible. it does not breed understanding or respect. host: from columbus, georgia. this is carl on our independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a comment and the question. constantly hear about the gun violence that is a continual thing. nation is on the forefront of the leading nations. we have this violence because our policy and whatnot about the ability to get guns and

have access to them. you know, i'm a veteran. do not get me wrong. i am not against gun ownership. i actually own several guns. i believe it is the right of each and every one of us to be able to defend ourselves, if need be. this is embedded in our constitution. you know, we have problems now. we have serious problems. endust frustrates me to no to see that our nation cannot come together. we are completely divided. it is very sad. i wish that we could wake up as thation, and understand there are things that can be

done. it is not so much as taking someone's rights to gun makingip away, versus the policy to get control of something that is out of control. thank you. guest: thank you for your service. i agree with you, as i said, i am not against guns as long as there are law-abiding citizens that have been. i'm not against that, this is madness. where losing a generation of young people in the united states. our children are four times more likely than canadian children. 65 times more likely than british children to be killed. there is a problem here. it is a myriad of things. it is not just one thing. there are a lot of things. it will take a village to correct what is going on. host: jane in illinois.

republican line. go ahead. caller: hello. i live in your district. my question is, why cannot we limit the availability of ammunition that these guns use? and, incidentally we need more water in the river. let's not listen just to the fisherman. thank you. i'm happy to hear your mind constituent. we can do a lot of things. we just have a hard time getting agreement across the aisle as far as ammunition. as far as gun safety measures in general. i am looking out for the river. and in virginia, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am a hunter. was 15y first gun when i years old. i'm now 65 years old. i am in favor of gun ownership.

i am not in favor of weapons that are designed to hold 30 rounds of ammunition. if we look at the killings that go on in this country, regardless of the hysteria that we talk about, these people being radicalized. the commonality is that they are using weapons that carry 30 rounds of ammunition. i live in the state of virginia. in the state of virginia, 200 the shotgun designed to hold five rounds, you have to put a plug in it to limit the number of rounds that you can put in the shotgun. that is a state law. yet, will allow people to carry weapons and own weapons that carry 30 rounds of ammunition. if we limited the number of rounds of ammunition, if we created these assault weapons to be loaded, and set up with magazines to be loaded from the

top like a hunting rifle with five runs of ammunition, you would not have the ability to walk into a building and md 30 rounds of ammunition into a crowd of people. you do not have to be a good shot when you're shooting 30 rounds of ammunition. i think that we will never take the guns out of this country and i do not want to give up the weapons are used to hunt. but, i think we need to look at the guns that we have now this country. making them safer. really the people who own these guns to say the only people that we have them are

guest: i do agree with you and when you look at the mass shootings or people that are killed innocently because people are spraying bullets all over and in one of the towns in illinois, not my district, highland park, they passed a law like that where lower magazine capacity and the supreme court -- went all the way to the supreme court but they refused to hear the arguments so that law will stand in highland park. those on the task force, we are ot trying to take guns away. host: changing magazine, are

those setting limits on the second amendment? guest: do you need large capacity magazines? you are not hunting with that gun. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] nick josh: i don't have anything at the top, so we can go straight to your questions. reporter: senator harry reid compared justice scalia to donald trump regarding the comments he made. the only difference of the ideas is that scalia has a robe and lifetime appointment. does the white house agree with that comparison and is it appropriate? josh: kevin, i'll just say -- i will talk about the comments of justice scalia and obviously the

sentment he expressed is not something that anybody who has heard the public comments of enator and now president obama that would be the difference. for our position on this case, i would refer you to the filing from the department of justice. they have outlined quite clearly the position of the the fact is and making opening the doors to a college education for every student in america has been a top priority of this administration and there's been significant progress made over the last several years. the high school graduation rate is currently at an all-time high, 81%. the graduation rate gap between white students and minority

students is closing. the high school dropout rate is at a historic low. and most of that progress in reducing the dropout rate has been made among minority students. there are more students than ever graduating from college. and college enrollment among black and hispanic students since 2008 is up by more than a million. so this administration and this president has made expanding access to a college education a high priority. and we have worked closely both with congress, with elements of the administration, but also with public and private universities to ensure that they are fulfilling their important mission of educating the next generation of american workers. reporter: so the president would not agree with that comparison? josh: well, i think the comments

articulated by justice scalia represent quite a different view than the priorities and values that president obama has been -- has spent his career talking about. reporter: valerie jarrett said that the president has directed his team in short order to finalize a set of recommendations of what can be gun to save lives from violence. can you be specific about what short order means and will the recommendations cover the extended background checks? josh: i don't have enough information about what the administration's trog. and what elements of the president's executive authority can be used of keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have

them. what additional steps can we take to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally ill. and that's no surprise that that has been a priority of the president but in terms of ongoing process or a time line for rolling out some new ideas, i don't have an update for you at this point. reporter: one question on the budget. it was said that republicans are trying to avoid a shutdown. are you becoming optimistic or pessimistic of where things tand and what is the administration's opinion on a short-term c.r. until the middle of next week? josh: there's a lot there. let me start from the beginning, which is that congress has the responsibility to pass a budget to keep the government open. they were supposed to meet the

september 30 deadline. they did come together around an agreement to essentially reach a compromise by the middle of december. and we have made -- we have seen them make substantial progress toward completing that agreement. however, the differences that down to thee boiled insistence on the part of republicans to including ideological riders in the bill. these are these are ideologies that wouldn't oibe able to patent pass congress and republicans see this as an opportunity to sneak them through. the real problem is that these are, in most cases, little more than just earmarks to specific constituencies, and in some cases, the biggest contributors to the republican party. the president's not going to go along with. that the american people certainly don't believe that's

an effective or reasonable or responsible way to manage the affairs of the greatest country in the world. and the way that we will be able to finally reach an agreement here is when republicans abandon their instistence on including these kinds of ideological riders in he budget process. reporter: i'd like to ask again with the k-1 visa program and the status of that. can you clarify whether or not the president and the white house believe you have the are ready you need, to make changes to that, or will you be asking congress for help, and are you working with congress on that issue right now? mr. earnest: it certainly is possible that after this investigation has made more rogress, in terms of the

actual case, the actual investigation into this act of terrorism, that we may ask congress for some additional assistance in reforming the program that allowed the female terrorist into the united states. but there's still more information that needs to be learned. there's still more information that needs to be learned about this individual, about the circumstances through which she came into this country. there's more information that needs to be learned about her background and any connections or communications she may have had with other people overseas. but we also need to take a close look at the k-1 visa program itself. this is the so-called fiance visa program. and there are questions that are being asked about whether or not additional steps or screening measures could have been implemented or should have been implemented. and if so, would they have made a difference, these are all

questions that, you know, eight days after this terrible terrorist attack, that are still under careful consideration. both the department of homeland security and the state department are responsible for administering this program. and both of those agencies are rightly conducting a review of that program, to determine what changes are necessary. the last thing i'd say about this is, the administration routinely reviews our visa screening program at large. and it's not at all uncommon for adaptations or forms to be implemented to tighten screening measures. we've talked, for example, about how on two different occasions over the last year, the secretary of homeland security has implemented tighter screening measures for those who are entering the country through the visa waiver program. there are 38 countries that cooperate with the united states, that impose some screening on those individuals,

or at least impose some measures on those individuals before they come to the united states. to ensure they are able to properly enter the country. and there are some steps that have been taken over the last year or so to beef up those screening measures. that's an example of the kinds to orient fforts our defenses to protect the homeland. reporter: you're saying that right now you're not working with congress on this review and that that is pending until after the investigation into the california shooting? mr. earnest: what i'm saying is that there is more information that needs to be collected in the context of the investigation. to make sure we sort of have a complete picture of what xactly happened. at the same time that that investigation is ongoing, that

counterterrorism investigation is ongoing by the f.b.i., there is a review that's under way at the state department and the department of homeland security to look into this program more broadly and determine if there are some changes that should be made to that program. obviously information about the ongoing counterterrorism investigation or terrorism investigation is shared with those who are doing the review. these things can go on sort of in parallel. and as we collect additional information about the ongoing investigation, that has fed into the review, and if we determine, as this review is ongoing, that congressional authority is required to make some of the changes that we believe need to be made, then we won't hesitate to go to congress to request that authority to make those changes. reporter: moving on to another topic. north korean leader appeared on thursday to claim that his country has developed a hydrogen bomb. is that something that the

white house takes seriously? his claim? mr. earnest: we certainly are concerned about the policies and intent and destabilizing actions of the north korean regime. at this point, you know, the information that we have access calls into serious question those claims. but we take very seriously the risk and the threat that is posed by the north korean regime and their ambitions to develop a nuclear weapon, that doesn't just threaten our close allies in south korea, but could have a pretty destabilizing impact and even a national security threat to other countries in the region. , so the united states does take this quite seriously. reporter: you're saying that if some changes need to be made to the visa program, but just knowing what we know now, that

investigators say she had talked to her potential husband about jihad ahead of time, she's attended a madrasa, she's gone to a hard core moss income islam bad, doesn't that alone tell you that -- islamabad, doesn't that alone tell you that there's a problem with the screening process? mr. earnest: i think the fact that this person entered the united states and then carried out an act of terrorism on american soil i think is reason enough to take a look at the program and that's exactly what the president's ordersed. reporter: you're saying if some changes need to be made. i mean, this points to some big holes already, no? mr. earnest: again, i think that's precisely what they're looking at. reporter: do you feel that changes do need to be made and, i mean, based on what's emerged now, do you feel that this person should not have been let in? mr. earnest: the questions you're asking merit careful consideration by the experts who are responsible for administering this program. and that's what they're taking of k at, at the direction the president of the united

states. reporter: some of the things that harry reid said about scalia's comments is that they're out of touch and distressing. does the administration agree with him on that? mr. earnest: i think in general, i'm not going to have anything too direct to say in response to justice scalia. other than pointing out that the views that he expressed stand in quite stark contrast to the kinds of values and priorities that this administration's been fighting for. but when it comes to our administration's view of this particular case, the department of justice has filed what we believe is a quite persuasive brief in the case. and so i'd encourage to you take a look at that brief for our position on these issues. reporter: on their face, though, you don't think those comments are problematic? mr. earnest: i think those commeblets are quite different than the kinds of values and priorities that this administration's been fighting for. reporter: not trying -- sure i heard you give an answer in the beginning on your confidence level that a budget deal is going to get done. mr. earnest: i'm confident it will get done if republicans drop their instistence on including ideological riders in

the budget process. reporter: do you have any confidence that they will do that? mr. earnest: i think we'll see. i take some confidence in knowing that the majority leader in the united states senate has said that there won't be a government shutdown and take some solace in knowing that the newly elected speaker of the house doesn't want to be in a position of presiding over a government shutdown six weeks into his tenure. so, i take some solace in that. but recognizing that, you know, ultimately republicans will have to decide if they're prepared to shut down the government over these ideological issues. reporter: back in october you guys threatened the veto of legislation that would have lifted restrictions on the -- [inaudible] -- oil. your environmental record, i'm wondering if -- [inaudible] -- if not, why not? mr. earnest: our position on the -- on lifting the ban on

crude oil from the united states is a position that hasn't changed. we continue to oppose legislative action like that. the reason that i have given for that position is that we believe that it's unnecessary for congress to take that step. primarily because there's authority that already rests with the executive branch to make that decision. so, that's our view. it's been our view for a number of months since this originally came up to the a subject of some debate. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: we certainly oppose it. our position on that hasn't changed. reporter: that didn't quite answer whether or not you would veto it. mr. earnest: i don't know that a specific bill on this has been filed. i think i've been asked for our position on this issue and i've stated pretty consistently that we oppose it. i know that there's some suggestion that we may -- that it may be added to the omnibus.

and i've been pretty rigorous about not walking through all the things that are going to lead to a veto or not of the overall omnibus. i've said that we'll take a look at what republicans put forward. but our position on that particular policy proposal hasn't changed. it's one we oppose. reporter: on the omnibus, has the president been doing any personal outreach, did he talk to members when they were over here for the christmas party or the bill signing? has he been placing phone calls? can you talk about his involvement? mr. earnest: i know there has been some presidential involvement. the president and the first lady spent several hours taking pictures with members of congress while they were here for the holiday party. earlier this week. i don't know how many detailed negotiations were entered into in the context of the photo line. probably not very many. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: doesn't it?

almost like those working receptions we have here at the white house. but i don't have a lot of color for new terms of the president's personal involvement. i know that he's been very regularly updated by his team on this. this is something that has primarily been led at the staff level because its member -- it's members of congress who are negotiating among themselves. but the president is obviously more than just an interested observer because ultimately the legislation they produce is one that will require the president's signature. he's certainly aware of what's going on. i know he's had some conversations. i don't have details to share with you. reporter: falling on the conversation we had yesterday about the aumf. you said then that you were still happy with the text that you submitted to congress earlier this year. i'm interested to know, the provision of that text, one of the few kinds of limitations that was put on the administration is that there would not be enduring offensive ground operations. when it first rolled out there was a lot of controversy over what exactly that meant. so i guess i'm wondering again

if you could give a more precise definition, and pecially special ops we're sending to iraq, doing offensive operations for an indefinite amount of time, why that wouldn't qualify under that exemption? mr. earnest: what we've said all along is that we would be happy to engage in a constructive process to negotiate the text with members of congress. so if there are members of congress who are interested in clarifying that provision of the legislation -- reporter: -- the first time, there was a lot of frustration over that. mr. earnest: i think the reason it failed first time is there was little appetite from members of congress in fulfilling their responsibility to weigh in on this issue. that's reflected in some of the comments we've seen from members of congress in "the new york times" today. senator coates, i'm tiring of pretending we're not at war and putting the responsibility somewhere else. it's not just me who is being critical of congress for refusing to take this up.

there are members of congress who are quite frustrated by their colleagues' collective refusal to consider this important piece of legislation. let me just try to answer your question a little bit more directly. that language that we sent up to congress was designed to articulate our opposition to military mission that would require tens of ousands of u.s. troops essentially invading another country and being in a position o both take and hold large swaths of territory for an open-ended period of time. that obviously is quite different than the mission that has been given to some of our special operations forces. obviously they are in a dangerous situation and they're

risking their lives to advance our national security interests. it is not however hair -- however their primary responsibility to go and hold territory, for example. i think that's sort of how i would try to describe to you what exactly we intended to convey in awarding the aumf in the way that we did. but again, if there are members of congress who have suggestions for clarifying that language in a helpful way, we certainly would be open to those kinds of conversations. reporter: thanks. back to the omnibus. we're hearing that both democrats and republicans are struggling with the riders on that bill. does the white house -- do you want no riders whatsoever or are you just looking to get down to dozens and dozens, down to just a few, a compromised level? mr. earnest: let me say a couple of different things about this. the first is that omnibus budget bills have historically

been characterized by adding extraneous pieces of policy to them. knowing that it's likely to pass congress. the thing that's important is that typically those have been measures that enjoy widespread support in congress. our objection comes to rides ical righters -- that are are partisan. and would not otherwise be able to pass the united states congress. and so using a must-pass piece of legislation to pass a controversial ideological policy proposal that wouldn't otherwise pass the congress is not responsible. and that's what we object to. and frankly that's what republicans are risking when they continue to insist on the inclusion of those kinds of measures. reporter: do you have any update on the progress of the

tax extenders package, is that moving in a direction that the white house supports? mr. earnest: i don't have an update on those talks. those are democrats and republicans on capitol hill who are engaged in those conversations. obviously the white house is interested in those conversations to the extent that we believe that if we're looking to extend a tax benefit that is enjoyed by large companies, we need to make sure that there are some tax benefits that are included for middle class families too. it remains to be seen what those negotiations will yield. reporter: thank you. a few topics very quickly. first, i want to try and close out your exchange with my colleague from cnn just now by asking whether you are telling us in essence that there will inevitably be some changes made to the visa program, it's just a matter of needing some more time and some more information out of san bernardino in order to arrive at what those will be. mr. earnest: that seems like

the likely outcome. transpired -- what's transpired. someone entered the united states through a k-1 visa program and acted out an act of terrorism on u.s. soil. that is worth a very close look. that's exactly what the department of state and the department of homeland security are doing and if there are changes that are necessary, that can strengthen the program and greater ensure our -- ensure our security, then the president will certainly direct those agencies to implement them. reporter: a journal has published a story reporting that a former detainee at guantanamo released by the o'brien administration has resumed an act of war fighting role with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula in yemen. can you confirm that story? mr. earnest: i've seen those reports but i'm not in a position to confirm that particular story. -- any report

about a former gitmo detainee re-engaging in the fight would be a source of significant concern and something that we would take quite seriously. based on what we know so far, more than 90% of those who have been transferred from guantanamo bay have not re-engaged in the fight. but we are certainly paying close attention, even if we find unconfirmed reports about those who may have. reporter: are you investigating the claims here? mr. earnest: it's something i can assure you that the u.s. government is taking a look at. reporter: you have been hearing from lawmakers about this story? mr. earnest: not that i'm aware of. i certainly wouldn't rule it out. reporter: lastly, i'd like to follow up on some of the exchanges in yesterday's briefing, ideal with without leading to us repeat the contents of yesterday's briefing. secretary carter in his testimony yesterday reaffirmed that the united states, along

with its coalition partners, is at war with isis. does president obama conceive of himself as a war time commander in chief? mr. earnest: i guess you'd have to ask him that direct question. we've been ask saying for more than a year -- reporter: he hasn't to you in your dealings with him? mr. earnest: based on the fact that he gave an oval office address to the country to talk about the significant military steps that have been taken against a terrorist organization with whom we are at war, i suppose you could apply that label to him with a lot of credibility. but in terms of how he considers himself and how he would describe his own posture, you probably have to ask him that. reporter: you, for example, would not war he will with my describing him as a wartime commander in chief? mr. earnest: again, we've acknowledged for more than a year that isis, isil has declared war on the rest of the world and the united states is leading the effort to degrade and ultimately destroy them. i think if you were to use that

description, it would be reasonable. reporter: i know that yesterday you did war he will with the assertion that there was a flat contradiction between the president telling abc news that isis was contained, and secretary carter flatly telling the senate armed services committee yesterday that it is not contained. you asserted there is no contradiction there. because of what the president meant. so just to clarify, when the president said that isis was contained, just a few hours before the paris attacks, he wasn't referring to the groups' -- group's geographic reach or terror capabilities but in essence their office space? mr. earnest: i think the president, if you go back and look at the transcript, you don't have to discern what the president meant. you can look at what he said. he made a specific reference to the fact that the amount of territory thatsy sill has been able to take -- that isil has been able to take over in iraq and syria has been contained and in fact rolled back because there's about 25% of the populated areas that they

previously controlled have now been taken or retaken by iraqi forces and by some opposition fighters inside of syria. reporter: is it appropriate to use the word contained when just a few hours later they to nstrated their ability cause mass casualty attacks on the homeland of one of our chief allies in this war? mr. earnest: the reason that the president ordered military action against isil in the first place is because the president was concerned about the territory that they had taken over inside of iraq and in syria and the president was concerned that they would use that safe haven to carry out attacks against the united states or our allies or our interests around the world. this is the very reason that we are engaged in a campaign right now, that is making progress to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. reporter: can you provide a historical analog, when in recent memory a war time commander in chief issued publicly an assessment of enemy strength that was so directly

undercut in sworn testimony by the top civilian commander of the pentagon? mr. earnest: as i pointed out, i don't agree with your assessment that what secretary carter had to say and what the president had to say. reporter: when it comes to the omnibus, the speaker said he's not going to put a deadline on it but he wants to make sure they get it right. he said the president is open to short-term extension. is he willing to go beyond these five days or is this it? mr. earnest: i think the way i described it yesterday is the president is not willing to give members of congress additional weeks or months to negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement. the fact is, they've already had weeks and months to negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement. and we would probably be very close to or at an agreement today if republicans weren't continuing to insist on the incollusion -- inclusion of ideological riders in a budget bill. reporter: on another topic, the house armed services committee announced that its

investigation found that the administration broke the law in not notifying congress ahead of the transfer of five taliban prisoners for bo bergdahl. does the administration still stand by its transactions? mr. earnest: absolutely. the president believes strongly in the principle of ensuring that anybody who puts on the military uniform of the united states is not somebody that's going to be left behind by the commander in chief. and there was a unique opportunity that was presented to safely recover sergeant bergdahl. that's exactly what we did. reporter: do you think that the k-1 visa process should continue while this investigation is ongoing? and should people be allowed into this country now on k-1 visas? mr. earnest: again, this is exactly what the department of state and the department of homeland security are taking a close look at. i'm confident that as they review the program, if they determine that it is not in our

national security interests to continue the program, that they'll forward that recommendation to the president. but this is still ongoing. reporter: for the moment you don't think the process should be stopped until it's pinpointed exactly why malik was through? earnearnt this point, what is under way is a -- mr. earnest: at this point what is under sway a careful review. and if there are changes that need to be made to the program, to strengthen our national security, based on the vulnerabilities that have been exposed here, then the president won't hesitate to order those reforms being implemented. reporter: it sounds like what you're saying is, until we know more, we're not stopping the awarding of k 1-1's. earn this is something that's under careful review and investigation by the two agencies that are responsible for administering the -- mr. earnest: this is something that's under careful review and

investigation by two agencies that are responsible for administering the program. reporter: in looking at some of the questions that malik would have been asked, you know, are you a member of a terrorist group, you have given financial support to a terrorist group, these seem to be focused on self-reporting. is it fair to say that there are going to be people, radicals, who aren't revealing what they're thinking and that it's impossible to completely filter out potential security risks? mr. earnest: i think, first of all, i think it is entirely reasonable to ask those questions. and it would be foolish not to. it would also be foolish to rely only on those questions in conducting a thorough background check of those seeking to enter the united states. so, the process involves certainly more than just asking those questions of that individual. but at the same time it would be foolish not to. reporter: when you said a thorough background check, do you think malik's background check was thorough? can you say that at this point?

mr. earnest: this is precisely the subject of ongoing inquiry. reporter: on a different topic, is the president being briefed and is he watching the events in chicago? mr. earnest: i don't know that the president's being briefed on it. i know that the president is following the events that are taking place in his hometown. the president's got great affection for the city of icago and i know, like other citizens of that fine city, he's concerned. i think the mayor himself has acknowledged that a lot of work needs to be done to rebuild trust between chicago police department and the citizens of that fine city that they were sworn to serve and protect. that is work that the mayor has indicated he's committed to. he's acknowledged that those are reforms that can't be implemented overnight. he's acknowledged that those are reforms that will require

onscientious and long-term focus of those who are in leadership positions in the city. and the mayor himself took responsibility both for the shortcomings that had been observed and on fixing it. ultimately the citizens of chicago will have to determine exactly how they feel about that. reporter: has the president given his personal relationship with the mayor, talked to him about what's going on and does he have confidence in the mayor's ability? mr. earnest: the last that i heard, which was a few days ago, the president had not spoken to mayor emanuel. i'm not aware of any conversations at this point. reporter: can you tell us what your role is right now in the omnibus spending bill, the white house's role, it sounds like the president has had some discussions with members of congress, at least, at the

holiday party. what about the staff? are you guys vetting these riders? how directly is the white house involved? mr. earnest: first of all, i was being a little light-hearted earlier. i wouldn't put stock in the cocktail party conversations about the omnibus. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: i know. i felt the need to clarify. [laughter] there has been, for a number of weeks now, robust engagement at the staff level here at the white house. i say that, acknowledging that the focus of these negotiations is between democrats and republicans who actually serve in the united states congress. but because of the need for the president to literally sign off on their agreement, the white house has been closely monitoring those conversations and occasionally offering a view on them. i don't have specific members of the white house staff to identify at this point.

but i think you might say that the usual suspects are involved. so we'll have to see where this ends up. obviously the concern that we have continues to center on the instistence on the part of republicans in congress to include ideological riders in the budget process. it's not a good way to run the country. optimistic that we will be able to find a bipartisan budget agreement, if republicans abandon that effort. reporter: can you at this point give us any sort of red lines? obviously they've been good about characterizing the riders broadly about unhelpful. but there's clearly going to be a few riders in the year, perhaps not a dozen, can you tell us where you want to get to on that in terms of the rider review process? mr. earnest: that's a creative way of suggesting that we -- that you and i should engage in these negotiations.

[laughter] i've often remarked if it were down to you and me, we could probably figure this out before the end of the day today. there are other people involved. and ultimately they will be the ones who will determine the outcome here. but i guess the other thing that i'll say, i think does sometimes get lost in this, the fact that we're not at logger heads over specific funding levels represents significant progress. we have had budget negotiations in the past that have broken wn based on disputes about numbers. and so the fact that democrats and republicans have been able to work together to negotiate our differences and find some common ground about spending levels is an indication that we've made some important progress. and so i don't want to be all dark here. but in order to reap the

benefits of that effective -- of those effective negotiations , republicans are going to have to stop insisting on the inclusion of ideological provisions in the budget process. reporter: there were droughts in ethiopia happening right now. [inaudible] -- the current climate situation is even worse. a few days ago -- [inaudible] -- a number of ethiopians needing food aid. would rise to 10 million in general. it's also noted that the drought will continue until december next year. since ethiopia and the u.s. enjoys a very strong bilateral elationship, what is the united states' plan to assist its strong ally, ethiopia,

before it's too late, before the drought -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: the relationship between the united states and ethiopia is subbling to something that president obama had the opportunity to discuss with the eith open -- ethiopian president on his trip there earlier this year. we're keenly aware that the recent -- that the he will anyoneow --el anyoneow comes on the heel -- el nino comes on the heels of two poor harvests. that has exacerbated the drought conditions in eith open yafment we're seeing that that drought has an impact on the food supply that millions of thiopians rely on. usaid has committed to providing more than $120 million in assistance. that's assistance that's been provided just in the last four r five months. that can be used to try to meet

the food needs of 3.5 million people. but there's additional rapid response capabilities that usaid has that are being deployed in this situation. these capabilities include things like providing safe drinking water, improving sanitation and hygiene, some nutrition assistance, as you'd expect. and other emergency relief supplies in those communities where they're most acutely needed. chris. nice to see you. reporter: let me get back to the original question about finalizing recommendations. are you pretty much ruling out anything legislative? mr. earnest: certainly not. would welcome congress -- reporter: [inaudible] -- recommendations might be. is there anything you think that legislatively could be possible? or is this all -- the recommendations you're talking

about, is it all executive action? mr. earnest: i think the set of recommendations that valerie's talking about is something that the president has been talking about for a couple of months now. these are essentially recommendations that the president has asked for from his staff, based on their review of available executive authority. and so i think the working assumption of this ongoing review is that congress h.s.a. hasn't acted -- hasn't acted. and they haven't acted. that's been the source of immense frustration on the part of the president and a lot of people in the executive branch. frankly, a lot of people all across the country. so given the congressional inaction, the question that's been raised, is what more can the obama administration do? and that's what -- that's the substance of this review. reporter: beyond congress and the presidential candidates, there's been a lot of conversations -- [inaudible] -- liberty university's president just came out and said student it's should be allowed to bring

concealed weapons into dormitories. a number of sheriffs have weighed in across the country, suggesting that they would appreciate the help of the public who have legal guns, to carry them in situations like this. other assistant justices said what happened in san bernardino is positive that gun control laws don't work. i just wonder if the president feels as if what's happened may actually be giving motivational moment ument -- momentum to gun rights advocates rather than his position? mr. earnest: well, i guess there is some evidence to indicate this, the f.b.i. put out information that a week or so ago that black friday, the day after thanksgiving, when people go shopping, that they actually processed the largest number of background checks for gun purchases in history. so, i described this in a briefing earlier this week as a tragic irony. that the more that we see this kind of violence on our

streets, the more people go out nd buy guns. hat is both ironic and tragic. i think the president's view is that he is going to forcefully advocate for the kind of gun safety measures that commonsense tells us will not prevent a reactive -- every act of gun violence, but even if it makes some ax acts of gun violence less likely, and we can do all of that without undermining the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans, why wouldn't we do it? reporter: [inaudible] -- black friday, what i just mentioned, are they -- those things an indication that your message is not getting out? mr. earnest: again, i think there's -- if you take a look at the intensity of this debate, and -- typically this debate has been characterized by a majority of americans who

believe in gun safety measures. and a minority of americans who are extraordinarily vocal, prevailing in congressional debates, because they are more effective in making their voices heard. right now there is a gun debate going on in this country and i think the voices that agree with the majority of americans, and in some case as majority of gun owners, about the wisdom of taking commonsense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, i think i've been encouraged by the way that those voices have spoken out. that's not to -- i think i've marshaled evidence to indicate that clearly there's been a reaction on the other side of this debate, but there's always been an intensity of opinion on that side of the debate. i think what's different is hat we are starting to see

those who support more gun safety becoming more outspoken. insistent g more about their point of view. reporter: another topic. was much of the president's speech yesterday indirectly about donald trump? mr. earnest: no. it was devoted to lifting up the kind of values that the vast majority of americans agree with, and i think that's the reason the president got a bipartisan standing ovation in the hall of the united states congress when he delivered that speech. reporter: when he said, what faith they practice, that was not a rebuttal to donald trump? mr. earnest: it certainly stands in direct contrast to some of the views that are being expressed by a variety of republican presidential candidates. but the views that the president has long sought to advocate, and the views that the president articulated

yesterday are consistent with the agenda that he has spent his career in public service trying to advance. reporter: any reaction to trump's announcement today that he's postponing his trip to srael or the u.k.? mr. earnest: when it comes to his considered trip to israel, i guess at this point i would say that, most people are relieved that he's reconsidered. he's obviously a private citizen. so he can travel anywhere that he wants. under u.s. law. but the situation in israel is particularly volatile. i think in this case, a decision to reconsider that trip is a good outcome for all those involved. reporter: when you say most people are relieved, does that include the white house? mr. earnest: yeah. i think that. it may also include the prime

minister of israel, who had his own concerns to express about mr. trump's recent comments. porter: did you advise the donald trump not -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: i'm not aware of any conversations between government officials and mr. trump or his campaign. reporter: senator rubio said recently that none of the recent mass shootings would have been stopped by the kind of stricter gun laws the white house has championed. that's something "the washington post" fact checker concluded was true in a long analysis. if not a single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by the kind of gun control measures you champion, are those the right approach to this problem? mr. earnest: i think we've been pretty direct and up front about the fact that there is no piece of legislation that congress can pass that would prevent every single act of gun violence. i think the case that we have made is one that rests

primarily on our concern about national security and our careful consideration of common sense. so let's take one example. let's take the no-fly, no-buy loophole. i think it's common sense, the president believes it's common sense, and it is in our national security interest, to prevent those who are deemed by the government too dangerous too board an airplane, that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun. until such time as they can resolve the concerns that the government has about their potential links to terrorism. there is a process that is administered by the department of homeland security for those concerns to be considered and resolved. again, when it comes to gun safety, that's a pretty commonsense step. i guess in response to senator rubio, i guess i would simply say, is he suggesting we should wait until someone who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun, purchases a firearm, and killses a whole bunch of innocent americans before we

pass a law preventing it? i don't think that passes the commonsense test either. reporter: the white house points to a recent mass shooting that would have been stopped by an assault weapons ban or background checks? the evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, people passed background checks or were determined to circumvent sort of strict gun laws that are already on the books. can you point to any that would have been prevented or stopped by the kind of proposals the white house is championing? mr. earnest: again, i think the same thing applies here. which is, it is not our view that we should wait until somebody who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun store, legally purchases a gun, and kills a bunch of innocent americans before we pass a law preventing it. that's a commonsense view. the president believes that's in our national security and that's why we believe quite stronkly -- strongly that congress should take action to

address it and close the no-fly, no-buy loophole. reporter: were any of the recent mass shooters on the no-fly list? mr. earnest: not that i'm aware of. you probably have to ask the director of national ntelligence to confirm that. reporter: [inaudible] -- i want to clarify, you said that it's a tragic irony that so many people bought the gun on black friday. why would that necessary bely -- would necessarily be tragedyic? they bought them legaly, they went through the background process. is that sort of what you want? you're not so much worried about the numbers as you're worried about loopholes, people -- the guns falling into the wrong hands, of kind of skipping out on the background checks? why would you think it's tragic that so many people buy guns on black friday? mr. earnest: i guess what i'm observe something that it's tragic that in the aftermath,

in the immediate aftermath, of a series of high profile mass shootings, that people feel like they have to go out and purchase a gun. because it's our view, and again i think this is backed up by some common sense, our nation is awash in guns. there are statistics about the large quantity of guns that are on her readily available street corners and in gun stores aye all across america. hat ready access to guns and that proliferation of violent eapons of war has not led to fewer gun deaths. in fact, we're seeing that those -- that that doesn't seem to be the affects that we're witnessing here -- effects that

is we're witnessing here. it's tragic that even in the situation where we have lots of guns on the streets, that lead to lots of innocent americans being killed, that the response to that is that a whole lot more guns end up on the streets. that's tragic. nd ironic. reporter: [inaudible] -- karl rove had a column in the "wall street journal" today saying that donlt trump is a g.o.p. nominee would be a nightmare for the republican party. this week you said he'd disqualified himself. is there any sense within the white house or the democratic rty on a larger level that eagerness of getting donald trump into the republican party nominee? [inaudible] mr. earnest: no. i think that we spend a lot of time talking about him and his comments. i think you heard the secretary of homeland security earlier this week indicate that his comments were dangerous.

you've heard me describe his views as offensive and divisive and cynical. speaking for myself, i take no light in his continued strength in the polls. reporter: one final. as far as the circumstances in chicago, the investigation there, the question came up earlier, i didn't hear you exactly answer whether the president has full confidence in mayor emanuel. mr. earnest: the president obviously knows and respects mayor emanuel. but in terms of rendering judgment about his fitness to continue to lead the city of chicago, the voters of that city will have to make that determination for themselves. i think it's quite clear that many of them will make that determination based on how he takes responsibility for and follows through on his commitment to implement needed reforms in the chicago police

department. he's accepted that responsibility and he's offered up that commitment to see through the implementation of those reforms. but ultimately the most appropriate judge of his success are the citizens of the city of chicago. reporter: -- [inaudible] -- leader of the party and a resident of chicago, would that be more reason for him to have an opinion as to whether he has confidence in the mayor? mr. earnest: it may be, but i think i've explained the president's point of view. reporter: what are the president's thoughts about traveling to san bernardino? even if you don't have any plans to announce, is this something he'd like to do, something he's thinking about doing? mr. earnest: i've not asked him this question directly. i'm sure that it's something that somebody here has considered. it's not uncommon for the president in the aftermath of some of these kinds of incidents to visit these

communities that were touched so directly by an incidence of gun violence. so, i wouldn't rule out a future presidential trip but i don't have anything to announce at this point. reporter: the governor in connecticut announced his own statewide no-fly, no-buy. he said that he'd been in consultations or he's had some discussions with the white house about this. is that -- can you say anything more about that? and are there other discussions with other governors, state officials, about state-wide gun laws, if not executive actions or other -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: i can't speak to any specific conversations that governor malloy may have had with somebody at the white house but i wouldn't contradict what he's said. it's not at all uncommon for a white house official to be engaged in conversations with state and local officials about advancing shared priorities and we know that there are many local and state officials across the country who are quite concerned about the impact of gun violence on the

communities that they govern. and there have been a number of conversations that white house officials have had, particularly the vice president's office, has had with officials across the country about steps they can take to try to reduce gun violence in their communities. reporter: would it be overstating it to say that this is part of a white house strategy to try and push this particular approach, since other approaches to gun safety legislation have not been successful? mr. earnest: i think it is fair for you to assume that the white house is actively engaged with leaders across the country, including at the state and local level, about steps they can take to protect their communities from gun violence. that certainly is an accurate statement. i think one thing that studies have shown, however, is that there are necessarily some shortcomings to that approach. which is that when you're passing local laws, sometimes it can be a little too easy for

somebody to just drive outside that jurisdiction, purchase a firearm that may be prohibited in the city, and drive back into the city and carry out an act of violence. so, that is why, even the success that many state and local jurisdictions are having in passing gun laws, that the president's commitment to keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them continues to be a priority of his federal legislative strategy. reporter: there's a report that here's a former gitmo prisoner who is seen in an al qaeda video. somewhere. he was released i think in 2012. and he appears with the leadership of this group somewhere. are you aware of those reports? has the white house seen the video? do you confirm or deny or whatever that? earn this is the same individual that james asked me -- easheash -- mr. earnest: this is the same individual that james asked me about. we've seen those reports but we

can't confirm at this point. reporter: just to follow up. you were talking about the maybe increased interest in those who support gun safety speaking out. because president obama of course has made a big effort to encourage the american public to speak out, to rise up, whatever. when you were making that statement, that there is evidence of that, the evidence is? mr. earnest: i think she was asking -- i guess i was making an observation based on the sort of state of the debate. reporter: but you're measuring the yard stick for this increased vocalization is, what, polling or action at state level or -- i'm just trying to clarify what you have in mind. mr. earnest: i think it's my perception of the ongoing debate. too often we get into these debates and the intensity on the side of those who are

opposed to additional gun safety measures, typically far outweighs the intensity of the argument that is made by those who support measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally ill. my perception is, could be wrong, but my perception is that there's a lot more intensity than there usually is on the side of those who would like to see some of these commonsense changes. i welcome that. but ultimately the only thing that really matters is what the congressional perception is. of that debate. and maybe we should go ask them. reporter: i was going to also ask something about the san bernardino families and victims. is it possible that the president is scheduled next week to head west, might actually stop in california, would that be an opportunity for him to perhaps see some of the families? mr. earnest: i don't have an update on the president's schedule. if he were to do something like

that, we'd definitely let you know. reporter: do you know if he has in any way personally communicated with any of the families? mr. earnest: that's nothing i have to share from here. reporter: it's possible he did that? mr. earnest: i don't have any information about that to share. reporter: why do you think so many -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: i don't know. i really don't. i think it's hard to speak -- my guess is that the 185,700 of them probably had a few different reasons for wanting to do so. i would hesitate to -- reporter: [inaudible] -- mr. earnest: i think some of them have been floated. in some cases these are individuals who believe that they need to buy a gun so they can better protect themselves. in some cases because it's black friday, they probably are going and purchasing a gift for a friend or a loved one who is a gun enthusiast. there are a variety of reasons why people might do that. i guess i'm just pointing out that there are already an astonishing number of guns on

streets of america and far too many innocent americans who are eing killed by them. so, the idea that our reaction to innocent americans being killed by guns is to dump 185,000 more guns onto the streets of america is tragically ironic. thanks, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> today, president obama signed the new education bill into law, replacing the no child left behind act. mark miller with cbs tweeting, president obama used 13 pence to sign the education bill. then gave the lengthy measure a pat. as some members of congress applauded. and from nbc's kelly o'donnell, three presidential candidates

missed the vote on the just signed every student succeeds act. texas senator ted cruz, florida's marco rubio, and vermont independent bernie sanders. over in the house, they've recessed to get a closed door briefing on the shootings in san bernardino, california. from f.b.i. director james comey, back in session, around 2:30 eastern for work on several -- seven bills, including funding for the coast guard. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, on after words, nurse and "new york times" columnist teresa brown discusses her book "the shift." one nurse, 12 hours, four patients' lives. which gives readers a firsthand account of her experience in patient care and safety. ms. brown is interviewed by deborah hatmaker, executive director of the american nurses association. >> health care is only going to get more and more complex.

and we're just going to need better and better nurses to meet all those complex needs. so thinking about how to keep us strong and healthy and encouraging that is huge. i don't don't think -- we sort of give lip service to that. but we don't really emphasize it. >> on sunday afternoon, at 1:30 p.m. eastern, -- >> politics, which i have been part of all my life, was not so ifferent from the world of petty criminals, robbers and racketeers, but it was disguised and therefore less obvious to see. in fact, for 25 years in my career, i've looked at america as an idea. i've defended american principles, the american dream, the american founding. and i've looked at american politics as a debate. the republicans believe in liberty. the democrats believe in equality. republicans want equality of

rights. democrats want equality of outcomes. now, it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american politics is complete and total nonsense. >> examining america and american politics in "stealing america: what my experience with criminal gangs taught me about obama, hillary and the democratic party." and sunday night, at 7:30 p.m. eastern, former democratic presidential candidate and author, lawrence lessing, talks about his experience running for president and campaign finance. the central theme of his book, "republic lost: the corruption of equality and the steps to end it." with >> we're supposed to have a democracy where we are equal participants but you have a system where members of congress spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money from the tiniest fraction of the 1%, they can't help but be more focused and concerned with the interests of that tiny fraction

of the 1%. so that's a system where this basic equality is denied. >> watch book tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span2. >> before the house gavels back in, in about 30 minutes, we'll take a look at a briefing from the defense department, this is from everyier today, with secretary of defense ashton carter, and india's defense minister. also during the briefing, one of the reporters in the audience asked about muslims entering the united states. here's a look. mr. carter: good morning, everyone. as many of you know, minister of defense hosted me in india last year.

it's now my pleasure to return the favor. to welcome my friend to the pentagon for his first official visit and to continue strengthening the defense ties between our two nations. . i want to thank the minister personally for his close relationship and hard work in securing the historic steps we've taken this year. the growing strategic partnership between the united states and india is one that's rooted in shared ideals, mutual interests and a spirit of innovation. in june i affirmed our commitment to stronger defense ties when minister parrikar and i signed the framework which charts the course for this relationship for the next decade. what we see going on between our two countries is a handshake of two complementary initiatives. india's making india policy and

the defense technology and trade initiative, and also india's act east policy and america's rebalance to the asia pacific. one important step, very important step in realizing the potential of our partnership is through the defense technology and trade initiative which fosters trade cooperation, works to build industry-to-industry ties and identifies opportunities for the co-development and co-production of defense systems. for instance, today minister parrikar and i discussed the progress that's been made towards cooperation on jet engines and aircraft carrier -- an aircraft carrier design and construction. as well as opportunities to collaborate on additional projects of interest, which will also further prime

minister -- further the prime minister's make in india's policy. we also discussed the importance of the naval exercise this year to india's participation in the rim of the pacific exercise next year and return for the first time in eight years to red flag, the premiere air-to-air combat exercise. i was honored to be the first secretary of defense to visit an indian operational military command when i went there so i'm pleased and on his way to washington, mr. parrikar was able to meet senior military members in hawaii, becoming the first indian defense minister to visit u.s. pacific command. later this afternoon, we'll observe live flight exercise on the u.s.s. eisenhower, making minister parrikar the first indian defense minister to go aboard a u.s. aircraft carrier.

this speaks not just to our important aircraft carrier technology cooperation but to our expanding cooperation in maritime security as well. of course, the indo-asia pacific is the most consequential parts of the world for america's future, and we welcome india's rise as a security partner in the region, a region where half of humanity lives and half of the world's economic activity takes place. through our meetings today and expanded cooperation in the days to come, the u.s.-india defense partnership will become an anchor of global security. as together we work towards a common future, common future between the united states and india that is destined. this is a relationship that

will be critical in strengthening the asia pacific -- independento-pacific asha architecture to that everyone there can it be to rise and prosper. and i'll welcome minister parrikar's comments before we take questions. thank you. minister parrikar: good morning. i'm delighted to be in the u.s. this is my first visit to your great country as defense minister. i'm deepful grateful to secretary carter for his warm hospitality extended to me and my delegation and before coming to washington i visited u.s. pacific command in hawaii and participated in pearl harbor commemorative ceremony. i also had an opportunity to

talk to john mccain and some of the members of the senate armed services committee. an event raction with organized by u.s. i.b.c. india and the u.s. shares a strategic partnership that reflects our shared values and interests. defense and security cooperation is a vital component of this partnership. our relations have grown stronger under the relationship of the prime minister and president obama. this is my third meeting with secretary carter. i had the pleasure of hosting secretary carter in late june this year when we signed the defense cooperation four-seam work agreement. -- framework agreement. this agreement is us having international peace and [indiscernible] in

our discussion today, secretary carter and i discussed a range of issues covering the entire spectrum of our defense partnership. we also exchanged views on global and regional security issues. we noted the good progress made under dtti. this is an initiative to reach both sides and that's great importance. we appreciate the partnership of secretary carter with this initiative. i hope secretary carter will desire to further collaborate in the [indiscernible] technologies within the framework of dtti. and we reviewed the cooperation between our armed forces which has grown stronger. today, india, pleased to say, is conducting more military exercises with the u.s. than

any other country. our cooperation in the maritime security is also becoming stronger, especially in the indian ocean region where india is playing his role and responsibility of [indiscernible] as you may be in e, president obama was india january of this year. our two countries agreed on joint strategic region for asia pacific and indian ocean region. [indiscernible] was a key topic discussion in our engagement. it has become a global phenomenon and requires a omprehensive response. terrorists must be [indiscernible] without any differentiation. i praised secretary carter of the key policy decision taken by the government of india in the defense sector, including

the increase in [indiscernible] liberal of set policies and including the ease of doing business. we feel that the policy initiatives have opened up immense opportunities for the u.s. companies to [indiscernible] in india in collaboration with indian companies. this was our message to industry that was presented yesterday. i look forward to working together with secretary carter to further expand and deepen ur defense relationship. something our two great democracies need to ensure. thank you. reporter: thank you. i have a question for each. mr. secretary, yesterday in your testimony on capitol hill, you mentioned that the u.s. is prepared to commit apache helicopters, attack helicopters in iraq under certain circumstances. you said that circumstances dictate and that the iraqi

government asked for it. i'm wondering if you're referring specifically and narrowly to the final stages of the battle for ramadi or do you see a broader need for expansion of u.s. combat power in iraq going ahead the next year or so? and may i ask also, minister, is india considering increasing its role in countering the islamic state? secretary carter: well, bob, i was speaking yesterday specifically about ramadi. but i think just bear in mind we have a general nationwide that is all around iraq effort to support the iraqi security forces. kurdish security forces in the north, and wherever we can identify them, sunni forces in the western part of the country. so we are doing a lot. and it -- but specifically in nnection with ramadi and the

area around ramadi, the forces that are doing that, just to remind you, were trained by us, equipped by us and if they would -- if it would benefit them and make a strategically decisive difference in the taking of ramadi for us to add more, including attack helicopters, we're prepared to do that. and more generally, as i indicated yesterday when i was on capitol hill, we are taking a number of measures. described nine new ones to isil.se the pressure on speaking just iraq and syria of the defeat of what is the parent tumor of isil. at the same time we'll work around the world. sadly, as we learned from san bernardino, here at home also. the department of homeland

security, the law enforcement community. so this is a global and multiexpect rale fight but we have to de-- multispectral fight but we have to take ramadi which is an important step and we'll assist it in whatever ways will hasten it and bring it about faster. reporter: do you think the fall of ramadi is imminent, moving quickly in that direction? secretary carter: well, i expressed yesterday it's disappointingly slow. i'm reluctant to make a time projection. i'm certain it will fall and we will assist in the making of it fall. general answer to that kind of question is as soon as ossible. defense minister parrikar: india's policy, no changes in the policy. while we share intelligence, we believe that whatever role dia is to play in the u.n.

program we'll do it. so there's no change. but we are sharing intelligence. we don't mind to go and step further in sharing. n sharing the information. aublenauble -- [inaudible] reporter: both of you spoke .bout the progress you have [indiscernible] where do you see the relationship going forward now? what is your vision and what is [indiscernible] defense minister parrikar: i think what we have achieved in he last 15 months, since june, and 2015, is remarkable

probably a month ndiscernible] i expect to -- progress. so in what we achieve in 50 years, probably will be able to chieve in the current 30 months, 40 months. secretary carter: i want to second that the pace is picking up. we've done so much more in the last year, probably we've done in the 10 years before that. i'm guessing that in the next 10 months we'll do yet again more than we've done in the last year. hese are not only larger projects, but they have a different character. as i indicated earlier, and that's what dtti is about. it's about projects in which we work together, sharing technology and sharing production.

which is good for our companies and good for our technology base consistent with the make in india. a policy of prime minister modi. and it just -- it reinforces the very deep cultural relationship between the united states and india, a people-to-people thing, democracy-to-democracy, and innovative culture-to-innovative culture, a sticking up for principles around the world. and enormous common interest. we talk about maritime domain, security asia, south asia, so forth. or all these reasons, we are being carried in this direction. our job is to make us go faster and that's what we're doing. reporter: a question to both of these questions. mr. secretary, can you talk a little bit about your proposals to develop counterterrorism hubs around the world to deal

with isis affiliates? you talked yesterday about your concerns, in particular, about libya. you think you can ever boot isis out of raqqah? mr. minister, because india is such an ally of the united states, and your country has so many decades of experience in diversity, many americans would like to understand, can you help us understand india's reaction to the proposal of donald trump regarding people of the islamic state. i have to imagine your government has a view about that. secretary carter: i'll go first. important as it is to defeat isil in the parent tumor of aq and syria, to include expelling them from raqqah, absolutely that's necessary. we also have to recognize that

as libya is one example that this tumor is metastasizing or has metastasize. that is the reality, recognition of that behind the concept of linking together american counterterrorism and military node in the region and around the world. so that they operate more smoothly together so they can focus on this network wherever it is, so this is -- these are capabilities that we have deployed now and, of course, we're focused on the defense ones. and knitting them together into a network so that the -- it takes us -- as frequently noted, a network to fight a network. this is going to be our network for fighting isil in a regional and indeed a global basis. so we are working on that. that's a proposal that we've been working on now for a number of months.

i think it's a necessity and it should be and will prove to be very effective. what is a regional and global phenomenon as we know? defense minister parrikar: i think your question to me is a potential of a nuclear bomb. i will not comment on what is being talked about in the u.s. but as far as india is concerned, we are the second largest muslim population. and we believe that everyone has equal opportunity called rights. yes, maybe there are a few small pockets of extremism, politicalization, but there's too few to bleed -- [indiscernible] in india we have equal rights for everyone and we don't look towards communities of suspicion. those radicalized are a different them. we tackle them separately. but those are terrorists.

reporter: and mr. secretary, we haven't heard from you yet, sir, on this understanding that secretary of defense you do not wish to discuss politics. nonetheless, it is a national conversation. what is -- does this proposal, wherever it came from, make the war against isis easier, more difficult? does it add to national security? does it harm national security? secretary carter: barbara, i'm only going to say one thing about that. i said this before. this is a department that stands apart from politics. it's national security, and i'm not going to comment on secretary of defense on anything that is going on in the camp -- campaign trail. we have said as a matter of -- and the president has said -- in the atter of fight against isil, this is not a fight with muslims or islam.

it's not, as they would like to westernizing of the conflicts in iraq and syria. we -- this is an extremist violent movement which threatens america and needs to be defeated. and we're working on accelerating the defeat of isil. that's the important thing. > last question. reporter: welcome to the u.s. what is the significance you feel about this u.s.-india defense cooperation in the light of making india initiative? it's not only talk the talk but

walk the walk. defense minister parrikar: we are doing more than talk. dtti initiative, secretary carter [indiscernible] for the first three, four months. but i think the matters are clear. the objectives are clear. we are already concluded on two of the items. there are six on the board. two more are in the final stages. but many more are coming. and i think this initiative, with the timeline of six months, we will see so many defense initiatives, technology , u.s. companies setting up production facilities in india. of course, setting up production may take more time. but those are coming through. and i'm thankful to secretary rter for his initiative --

[indiscernible] normal level of dealing. this enhanced position will directly result into a great deal of things coming out in the next six months. reporter: mr. secretary, there is so much talk about counterterrorism. and even in the latest case here, the person had come from pakistan. so it is that region also which is very important. how are you coordinating with dia on those regional issues of counterterrorism? secretary carter: well, we have regular conversations with india about both -- both about counterterrorism and about regional security issues. and obviously terrorism of all kinds in south asia has been and remains a serious problem.

india has been attacked and is continuously threatened with attack from terrorists. even as we are. even as pakistan and afghanistan are. we have independent relationships with all three of those, and counterterrorism isn't the only thing we do with all three of those, but counterterrorism is an important thing we do with all of them. and with respect to india, i'll just say that counterterrorism clearly is a key common interest. we work a lot together on that, and then we have a wide range geopolitical, strategic and technology areas of cooperation as well. so it's a very wide ranging relationship. in today's world, you can't leave out terrorism. >> thanks, everyone. secretary carter: thank you. thanks, all, very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> every weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3 -- 48 hours of programs and events that tell our nation's story. saturday afternoon at 2:00 eastern, historians and authors on the life and legacy of stokley carpel ikele, a voice for -- carmichel, a voice for black power in the united states, and the revolutionary party. they're joined by field secretary charles cobb. >> stokley called the sit-in movement an apprenticeship and struggle. and i think he's about right in that. no matter where you come out five years later, i mean, stokley, you know, eventually moves africa, enbraces pan-african socialism. others embraced the democratic party. >> and then 8:00, house and university history professor elizabeth gray on the use of

opium in the 19th century and public opinion of its abuse by men and women. >> the attitude toward women drinking at the time was that this was very inappropriate. that a woman should not drink. y would this be looked to as something she could turn to? >> and then road to the white house rewind. we look back to the 2000 campaign of al gore as he tours the state of new hampshire. >> and for the last 6 1/2 years, you've seen new hampshire change from a time when you were losing 10,000 jobs a year to a time now where you're gaining 12,000 jobs a year. and that's partly because we've had fiscal responsibility. president clinton and i put in place an economic plan that has balanced the budget and turned the biggest deficit into the biggest surplus. >> al gore went on to win the democratic nomination but lost the general election to george w. bush in one of america's

highly contested presidential elections. american history tv all weekend every weekend only on c-span3. >> and on capitol hill, the senate just passed a five-day continuing resolution that will make its way on now to the house. the house expected back in under 10 minutes, debating seven bills today, including coast guard funding for the next two years. over the past couple days on the house floor, democrats have been calling on motions to adjourn, protest votes, a push for a bill by peter king that would prevent suspected terrorist fathers buying guns. democrats want that measure to be considered on the floor. congressman tom mcclintock of california talked about his opposition to the measure, speaking for about five minutes earlier today. we'll watch as much of this as we can before the house gavels in. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. ever since the terrorist attack in san bernardino -- san bernar

politicians have called for more restrictions on gun ownership for americans. these are the same politicians who have worked for years to open our nation to unprecedented and indiscriminate immigration from hot beds of islamic extremism. the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. if one person in that room in san bernardino had been able to return fire, many innocent lives would have been saved. but californians are subject to the most restrictive gun laws in the country, making it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment right to defend themselves and in a society denied its right of self-defense, the gunman is king. i repeat, the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. yet the president and his followers seek to increase the number of terrorists entering through porous borders and lax immigration laws while at the same time seeking to decrease

the number of armed americans. their latest ploy was announced by the president on sunday and has been parroted by his congressional allies this week to the point of disrupting the work of the house. in the president's words, congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list should buy a gun. he could ask what could possibly be the argument against that? while serving in the california state senate a decade ago, i discovered suddenly i couldn't check in for a flight. when i asked why i was told i was on this government list. the experience was absolutely calf can-esque. why am i on that list? we can't tell you. what criteria do you use? that's classified. how do i get off that list? you can't. i soon discovered that another california state senator had been placed on that list. a few months later u.s. senator edward kennedy found himself on that list. i at least had the office of the sergeant at arms of the state senate to work through, something an ordinary american

would not. even so, it took months working through that office with repeated petitions to the government to get my name removed from that list. and the farce of it all was this, i was advised in the meantime just to fly under my middle name, which i did without incident. in my case it turns out it was a case of mistaken identity of the i.r.a. activist the british government was mad at. this could happen to any american. the point is this during this administration the i.r.s. has been used extensively to harass and intimidate ordinary americans for exercising their first amendment rights. what the president proposes is that on the whim of any federal bureaucrat an american can be denied their second amendment rights as well with no opportunity to confront their accuser, contest the evidence, or avail themselves of any of their other due process rights under the constitution. the congress september that the left is seeking to -- concept that the left is seeking to

instill in our law is that mere suspicion by a bureaucrat is sufficient to deny law-abiding american citizens their constitutional rights under the law. given the left's demonstrated hostility to freedom of speech and due process of law, it's not hard to see where this is leading us. i support the president's proposal if it established a judicial process where an individual could only be placed on this list once he had been accorded his constitutional rights to be informed of the charges, to be given his day in court, to be accorded the right to confront his accuser and contest the evidence against him and submit himself to a decision by a jury of his pearce. that's the farthest thing from the left's agenda. the president's proposal would have done nothing to stop the carnage in san bernardino where the terrorists were not on any watch list. one was admitted from saudi arabia after vetting that the president keeps assuring us is rigorous and thorough. several of the guns used in this massacre weren't even acquired

directly but rather through a third party. of course the american people don't want terrorists to have guns. the american people don't want terrorists in our country in the first place. but the president's policies have left our nation's gate wide open while he seeks to take from americans their means of self-defense. so i leave off as i began. the best defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. that's what the second amendment is all about. it is an absolutely essential pillar of our security. our constitution is our best defense of all and it must be defended against all >> and also on capitol hill, the senate just passing a five-day continuing resolution to fund the federal government passed the deadline of this friday. it will go on to consideration in the house. they recessed earlier to get a closed door briefing on the shootings in san bernardino from the f.b.i. they'll work on seven bills

today including funding for the coast guard for two years. here's a briefing with house peaker paul ryan from earlier. the speaker: good morning, everybody. hopefully this is the last one of these we'll do this year. hopefully. with that in mind, i'd like to start by talking about my top priority for 2016. last week at the library of congress i outlined my vision for a confident america here at home and abroad. the current approach is nt getting us there. -- isn't getting us there, so we need to offer our country a real alternative in a bold pro-growth agenda. this morning i told our members at our conference this agenda will be our focus in the new year. i've asked each of our members to bring their ideas to the table so we can get started early next year. over the last six weeks, i

believe that we have made a very, very good down payment on this project. we've enacted the first long-term transportation bill in more than a decade. we've enacted the biggest reform of our education system in 25 years. driving powers back to the states, school districts and ur students. this will compete on a level playing field. we have done all of this while opening up the process and eturning to regular order. i've talked how conference committees have been not been here in decades.

in the entire last congress, only three conference reports became law in total. only three conference reports became law last year. we've done three conference eports in 10 days. we're getting the house of representatives back to the people's house. --as we move forward, we need to raise our gaze. we need to aim higher than just trying to meet deadlines. we need to treat this like the generational defining moment that it really is so that we can give the people of this country a real choice. that is what 2016 is going to be all about and i'm looking forward to it. with that i would be happy to answer your questions. >> mr. speaker, earlier this morning minority leader nancy pelosi and other democrats were laying perhaps a new demand in omnibus negotiations on the able to remove the current

rider banning gun violence research. do you have any response to that? is that something republicans would consider? the speaker: i'm not going to negotiate current negotiations through the media. you know that. >> do you have any thoughts on the arguments? the speaker: i don't want to address -- we are in the middle of negotiating an enormous year-long omnibus appropriations. those negotiations are ongoing right now while we speak. the last thing i want to do is negotiate through the media. >> you addressed donald trump's remarks the other day over at the r.n.c. digest uple days to it. you're a leader of the republican party. you run for national office yourself. what's going on right now? the latest polls for what they are worth, 35% of republicans primary likely voters support donald trump, what's going on? the speaker: i'm not going to comment on that. i'm focusing on making this place work. i weighed in on a comment made in the presidential campaign because i think that needed to be commented on. i'm not going to spend every

day here talking about the go betweens of what's happening in the presidential election. >> are you worried -- the speaker: look, you know what's going to get this place working well? you know what's going to say to the country, we put out an agenda to the american people in 2016. we show the people of this country here is a better way forward. here's a specific pro-growth agenda and you choose, mr. and mrs. america, you choose what kind of country you want to have. that is our obligation. we have a duty to lay that positive vision out to the country and that's what we're going to do in 2016. >> take us down the rabbit hole a little bit. what happened when the plan was, i was told, a week ago, we are going to try to have the bill out over last weekend. that didn't happen. then we are going to have the house in session this weekend. that was pealed back in 24 hours. now we are looking at the middle of next week.

walk us through what happened and why the delay. the speaker: we want to get it right. we don't want to rush legislation, especially big legislation like this omnibus appropriations. this is something i more or less inherited from the last regime. and i don't want to rush things through here. i want to get it right. we have always had the third week of december on our calendar as a week that we would potentially be in session. so we didn't want to come up against an arbitrary december 11 deadline and rush something. we are negotiating. what we realize we didn't have to keep our members here on saturday and sunday while we continue to negotiate. >> what was that trip wire? the speaker: there really wasn't a trip wire. only i wasn't going to let december 11 be an arbitrary deadline to rush legislation. we want to get it right. >> it seems every one of these big spending bills, about 80 members of your conference, there is a sizeable amount of the vote no vote. representative tom cole said those folks hurt your negotiating position because nancy pelosi can sit across the

table and say you can only provide 80 votes, do you feel that way? the speaker: i don't want to comment on negotiating strategies or what it is we are doing or how our votes are going. i think our members understand the situation quite well. look, we are not going to get everything we are going to want in negotiations. the democrats aren't going to get everything they want. but i believe we'll successfully complete the negotiations. >> you want more than 80, though. mr. scalise did send out that memo saying get onboard. the speaker: i don't want to comment on the internal deliberations of our conference. we're negotiating. not everybody gets what they want when you negotiate in divided government. i think we'll complete this. yes. >> there seems to be an air of nonchalance congress is missing the december 11 deadline. the speaker: it's like that a lot here. it's not nonchalant. it's getting it right. look, this is $1 trillion we are dealing with. this is hardworking taxpayers work hard to send us their tax dollars. we have to respect that. so that's why we have to make sure that how we spend the

hardworking taxpayer dollars are done in a way where we are scrutinizing every dollar. we are not going to rush it. we are going to get it right. so the deadlines -- look, deadlines come and go. we want to make sure that we get it right. that is why we are trying to get these deliberations and these negotiations going the right way without having some artificial deadline to get us. >> as far as 2016, as you started your comment, the tax overhaul, would that be number one? do you intend to move bills or put another bill on the table like dave camp? the speaker: this is something we are going to be deliberating in our retreat and thereafter. i am not going to be the speaker of the house dictating exactly how we assemble our agenda and what's in the agenda. what i am doing is creating a format, a structure for our members to come together and participate in how to build a pro-growth agenda and lay it out for the country. that is a decision we are going to make jointly as a conference. it's one of the things i'm trying to do in this position is not hold power, but

decentralize it so all the members of our conference, all members of congress have an ability to participate in this situation, in assembling this agenda. that's why i'm not going to answer questions i don't have answers to because i'm not going to be the only one making these decisions. i want my colleagues joining me. >> do you anticipate to finish by wednesday? or should you -- do you think -- the speaker: i'm not going to put a deadline on it. i don't think it would be right to say what date we are going to be done by because i want to make sure these negotiations are done well and done right and not by some arbitrary deadline. >> could you give some sense about where things are generally speaking? the speaker: we are trading offers. we are talking to each other. we are doing all the things you would do, the appropriators and the leaders, so that we can get an agreement. >> billions of dollars of tax extenders hanging around. can you give us insight into how that happens? the speaker: tax extenders and omnibus are both simultaneous negotiations that are taking place at the same time.

we posted a bill. that bill is our base case bill. we'll pass that bill if we cannot get an agreement on a bigger package. >> mr. speaker, the san bernardino briefing today, what questions do you go in with and what do you hope to hear? the speaker: i received a briefing at the beginning of the week. i asked most of my questions on the f.b.i. and other intelligence officials. what i wanted to do is give all members of congress access to the same briefers i received so they can get answers to their questions. general on the 2016 agenda -- by the way [indiscernible] from the christian science. the speaker: thank you. >> how is the presidential candidates, the two independent avenues, but obviously this program you want to come up with is pretty substantial. the speaker: we have given thought to that. i have been on a ticket. i'm familiar with how this works. i don't think that we have the time to wait until a nominee arrives, which could be as late

as, i don't know, june or july. to then come up with an agenda to show the country who we are and what we believe in. we don't like the path america is on. we think we are on the wrong track. we have an obligation to show a better way forward. and we have something to say about that. i think we are going to do this earlier because i think it's wrong to wait that long. i don't think we have the luxury of waiting. what i learned in presidential campaigns is you have to start talking about these issues early and often so that people understand what kind of choice hey are truly being given. >> thank you, mr. speaker. "the l.a. times." i wanted to ask something you said earlier in the week you would go ahead and support the republican nominee, whoever that is. can you talk about the importance of that, why you believe it's important -- the speaker: you may not know this. as speaker of the house, i'm the chairman of the republican national convention. chair the convention.

so i'm going to be neutral, a, in presidential election in the nominating process because i'm the chair of the convention. so i'm not going to say who i'm for or against. i'm going to support the nominee. wouldn't that be weird if the chair of the convention isn't supporting the actual nominee? so because i am -- i have a special role as chair of the republican convention, i stay neutral and support the nominee. and all the while i will stand up for what i believe. i will stand up for what i believe is right and i will stand up for our party's principles and nation's principles. thank you. >> and on capitol hill, the senate passing a five-day continuing resolution to fund the federal government passed the deadline of this friday. the c.r. will now go onto the house for consideration, and the house expected back in shortly after a recessing for a closed door f.b.i. briefing on the shootings in san bernardino. working on seven bills today on the house floor, including

funding for the coast guard. while we wait, a look at some of what happened earlier today over in the senate. north leader harry reid responding to -- minority leader harry reid responding to ant lynn scalia on affirmative action. here's a look. the supreme court heard oral arguments in the case of fischer v. university of texas. in that case, the plaintiffs were challenging affirmative action program the university of texas has. during those oral arguments, conservative justice scalia asked whether affirmative action harms minority students by placing them in environments that are too academically challenging for them. justice scalia said this about african-americans -- and i quoto contend that it does not benefit african-americans to get them into the university of texas, where they do not do well as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower

track school where they do wel well." scalia further argued that african-american students -- quote -- "come from lesser schools, where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them and that the university of texas should not take really qualified african-american students because that means the number of really competent blacks mid to lesser schools turns out to be less." but that wasn't enough. here's what else he said. "i don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the university of texas to admit as many blacks as possib possible." it's stunning, a man of this intellect. and i've always acknowledged his intellect. but these ideas that he pronounced yesterday are racist in application, if not intent. i don't know about his intent

but it is deeply disturbing to hear a supreme court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench on the nation's highest court. his endorsement of racist theories has frightening ramifications, not the least of which is to undermine the academic achievements of americans, african-americans especially. earlier this week i spoke about republicans' platform which has a lot of hate in it. as we speak, donald trump is proposing to ban muslim immigration. other leading candidates are proposing a religious test, tossing around slurs on a daily basis. the top two republican leaders in the united states senate -- i'm sorry, in the united states, have said they will support donald truch if he' trump if he. and now a republican-appointed sprec justice scaig racist things from the bench. scalia has a robe and a lifetime

appointment. ideas like this don't belong on the internet, let alone the mouths of national figures. the idea that african-american students are somehow inherently intellectually inferior for other students is despicable. it's a throwback of time -- to a time that america left behind a half a century ago. the idea that we should be pushing well-qualified african-american students out of the top universities into lesser schools is unacceptable. that justice scalia could raise such an uninformed idea shows just how out of touch he is with the values of this nation. it goes without saying that an african-american student has the same potential to succeed in an academically challenging environment as any other student. i firmly believe that the united states of america is the greatest nation in the world because of our ability to embrace men and women of diverse backgrounds, provide them with opportunity to succeed. colleges and universities

provide their students with opportunity many in the world can never hope to obtain. people from different backgrounds spurs creativity and innovation. research has shown that increased -- excuse me. increased racial diversity on campuses produces higher levels of academic achievement for all students. and fortune 500 companies agree that embracing diversity is good for the bottom line. and the supreme court previously has acknowledged that diversity provides a substantial and compelling contribution to our educational system. yet justice scalia's comments paints a picture of two disturbing realities. despite the progress our nation's made on diversity and inclusion, there's still much work to do to ensure that we're giving every american a fair shot. regardless of their race, ethnicity or religion. as a nation, we still have the responsibility to direct adequate resources to our educational system to permit all students a higher he indication.

generations of discrimination and sanctioned inequality have produced racial disparities in our educational system. sad but true. these disparities must be addressed by embracing diversity in our schools, workplaces, markets, neighborhoods while investing in adequate resources for all students >> we take you now live to the floor of the house as members gavel back in working on seven bills today. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3831. the speaker pro tempore: report the title of the bill. the clerk: -- does the gentleman move to suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? mr. tiberi: he yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3831, a bill to amend title 18 of the social security act to extend the annual comment period for payment rates under medicare advantage. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, and the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i wish to utilize all the time i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, today i rise in support of h.r. 3831, the securing fairness and regulatory timing act of 2015. this is a small but really important piece of legislation. and i'm pleased to have my friend here from california, mr. thompson, to discuss this important measure. the house passed this measure earlier this year in june by unanimous -- unanimous consent, and now we return to the bill to ask for technical corrections asked for by the centers for medicaid and medicare and the senate so we can send this bill to the president's desk before the end of the year. today the medicare advantage

program known by many as the m.a. program, serves more than 16 million seniors across the united states of america, including my mom and dad. enrollment has increased more than threefold in the past 10 years and is expected to nearly double in the next 10 years. to ensure that seniors and m.a. plans across the country are able to continue to receive high quality care that they deserve, c.m.s. is expected to pay about $156 billion to more than 3,600 m.a. plans this year alone. that amounts to nearly a 30% spending of medicare -- overall medicare spending. typically every year c.m.s. sends out what is called -- what it calls a rate notice to plans in medicare advantage companies that details the various payment rates, as well as benefit changes that the agency intends to make for the following plan year that impacts people like my mom and dad.

this notice follows a standard process of a draft notice, it gets published, and the public has a certain amount of time to submit comments and questions and the then the agency publishes a final notice based upon that feedback they receive. however m.a. and part d aren't treated the same as the other major payment systems within medicare it sefment right now the current process takes about 45 days, but only 15 of those days are allotted for the commenting portion. 15 days for thousands of plans, millions of stakeholders to submit comments on proposed changes to a program that amounts to 1/3 of all medicare spending. i can almost understand this if the rate notice were as short and concise document. if it were easy to understand and simple to implement. but it's not. in fact, the rate notice has grown from around 16 pages in

2006 to nearly 150 pages this year. that's over a 900% increase. all the while the time for the public comment period has remained static. exactly the same. this means less and less time for the plans and congress to conduct the necessary review in order to provide c.m.s. with the feedback that would better help the agency access the impact of their proposed changes to consumers. this is important because without accurate feedback c.m.s. inadvertently move forward with the program that might negatively impact those seniors, again like my mom and dad who depend on these plans for access to their doctors. so the legislation before us is simple and straightforward. it extends the public notice period from 45 days to 60 days. therefore it would double the extension of the comment period from 15 days to 30 days.

this is a commonsense, good government fix. we can make that will give plans more time to understand the changes c.m.s. -- the changes that c.m.s. proposes and other constructive feedback to make the medicare advantage program overall more responsive to senior citizens' needs. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation again and send it to the senate so we can get it to the president's desk. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i rise in support of h.r. 3831, the securing fairness in regulatory timing act of 2015. every year the centers for medicare and medicaid services publishes its medicare advantage call letter and rate notice,

which outlines payment rates and changes for the nearly 2,000 plans that serve our most vulnerable population. nearly 10 years ago the call letter and rate notice were less than 20 pages long. however, since then enrollment in medicare advantage has nearly tripled from 5.4 million to 16 million. medicare advantage policies have become more complex and the call letter and rate notice has grown nearly tenfold, sometimes up to over 200 pages long. at the same time the time between the publishing of these draft notices and the final notices, which is currently 45 days, has remained unchanged. during this 45-day period in which there are only 15 days to comment on the proposed changes in the program plans, stockholders, members, and staff are expected to review 150 pages of regulatory changes and understand the impacts of those

proposed policy changes on a program that provides essential medical care to over a third of medicare beneficiaries. we know from our experience every february and march this does not lend itself to an efficient, effective, nor transparent process. moreover, it shortchanges c.m.s. of thoughtful constructive feedback that is necessary to improve a program that our soonors -- seniors enjoy and rely on. currently, h.r. 3831, a simple straightforward bill that will improve the current process by expanding the cycle from 45 to 60 days and that gives plans, stakeholders, members, and our staff 30 full days, double the current time allowed, to analyze, provide feedback on the draft, call letter, and rate notice. this is a no cost, good government bipartisan bill that will make the process more transparent, fair, and add van hollen tajeous for the beneficiaries we serve -- add

van hollen tajeous for the beneficiaries we serve. as my good friend from ohio pointed out, we already passed this bill. it's only coming back for some technical changes. i would ask and strongly recommend that all of our colleagues vote in favor of this bill so we can pass it to the senate and get on with the work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and includeheir remarks and extraneous material on h.r. 3831 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: just to close, mr. speaker. i agree 100% with my friend from california, urge all our colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3831 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, it the rules

are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 808. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 808, an act to establish the surface transportation board as an independent establishment, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, will

each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 808. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i now yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines, and hazardous materials, mr. denham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: i thank the chairman to speak on the surface transportation board re-authorization act of 2015. this is an important piece of legislation that will reform the s.t.b. to work more efficiently to bert regulate the railroads. this year is the 35th anniversary of the passage of the staggers act of 1980 which saved the railroad industry from bankruptcy. earlier this year my subcommittee held a hearing on the successes of the railroad deregulation. we heard how railroads were free to act more like true businesses by charging market driven rates and being able to right size their operations along rail

lines that made economic sense. this deregulation effort culminated in the creation of the s.t.b. and interstate commercial commission termination act of 1995. the s.t.b. is the small but signature agency that conduct the economic regulation of the railroads and has not been re-authorized since its creation. the bill we consider today would streamline and simplify government regulatory activities, all hallmark of this congress. while the s.t.b. is successfully overseeing a stronger railroad industry, this bill will help the rail industry better serve its customers. first, it streamlines dispute resolution procedures and sets hard deadlines for completion of rate cases to reduce litigation costs. second, it provides greater transparency in the complaints received by the s.t.b. and requires enhanced reporting by the agency. third, it rejects big government regulatory action that has been

proposed in the past. instead it makes necessary reforms to the agency to improve its processes and procedures. final lirks the bill has broad support from shipper groups across the country, including the national grain and feed association, the american chemistry council. the fertilizer institute, and the american farm bureau federation. continue to make the rail industry better for shippers and i urge my colleague to support this critical legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized